Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mapp v. Busty

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division

February 10, 2015

AL RICO MAPP, Plaintiff,
v.
LT. BUSTY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification State Prison in Jackson, Georgia, filed the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. On January 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended dismissal of this case without prejudice as sanction for abusing the judicial process by providing dishonest information about his prior filing history. (Doc. no. 14.) The Court also instructed Plaintiff that any objections to the R&R had to be filed no later than January 26, 2015. (Doc. no. 15.) Having received no objections to the R&R by the deadline, the Court adopted the R&R as its opinion on January 30, 2015 and closed the case. (Doc. no. 16.)

On February 9, 2015, the Clerk of Court docketed an undated objection from Plaintiff that had arrived in an envelope post marked January 28, 2015, two days after the deadline for objecting to the R&R. (See doc. no. 18.) Although Plaintiff provides no explanation for the untimeliness of his objection, in an abundance of caution, the Court will address Plaintiffs objection to the R&R. Thus, the Court VACATES the adoption order and judgment entered on January 30, 2015. (Doc. nos. 16, 17.)

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's R&R, to which objections have been filed (doc. no. 18). Plaintiffs objections focus primarily on whether he has accumulated three strikes. However, the Magistrate Judge did not recommend dismissal based on the accumulation of three strikes, but rather on Plaintiffs failure to fully and accurately disclose his prior filing history. (See doc. no. 14.) Nothing in the objections changes the conclusion that Plaintiff was dishonest, under penalty of perjury, about the status and existence of prior cases he filed and in which he participated. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DENIES Plaintiffs second in forma pauperis motion as MOOT (doc. no. 13), DISMISSES this case without prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiffs abuse of the judicial process, and CLOSES this civil action.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.