United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
July 24, 2015
FREDERICK BANKS, Plaintiff,
RAY MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER ECF No. 1
DAVID STEWART CERCONE, District Judge.
Plaintiff commenced this civil action on June 22, 2015, by filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) on Form AO 240, "Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs", along with a copy of the Complaint and Civil Cover Sheet. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), and Local Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 2), filed on July 2, 2015, recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied. Service of the Report and Recommendation was made via First Class Mail on Frederick Banks at his address of record, 600 Grant Street, Suite 660, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Plaintiff was informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, that he had fourteen (14) days to file any objections. Plaintiff has not filed any Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 2) as of this date.
Therefore, after a de novo review of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and attachments thereto, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2015,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Plaintiff Frederick Banks (ECF No. 1) is DENIED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff Frederick Banks wishes to continue to pursue this civil action, he must file a motion to reopen the case and submit either the required certification statement or the $400 filing fee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 2) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated July 2, 2015, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.