Reported / Citable
Background
Willie Munn, proceeding pro se, filed an action alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights. The district court referred the case to U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter under 28 U.S.C. § 636.
The magistrate judge recommended revoking Munn’s in forma pauperis status and dismissing the suit, subject to conditions governing any refiling and an opportunity to continue the existing case by timely paying the remainder of the full $405 filing fee. The report and recommendation was mailed to Munn’s address of record but returned as undeliverable with the notation “not here.” Munn filed no objections.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III reviewed the pleadings and the unobjected-to report and recommendation, found the recommendation correct, and adopted it as the court’s opinion. The court noted that the absence of objections barred de novo review and generally limited appellate review of the adopted factual findings and legal conclusions to plain error.
The court revoked Munn’s in forma pauperis status. It dismissed the suit with prejudice as to filing another in forma pauperis action raising the same claims, but without prejudice to refiling the suit without seeking pauper status and upon payment of the remainder of the full $405 filing fee. If Munn pays that unspecified remainder within 15 days after entry of dismissal, he may proceed in the existing action as though the full fee had been paid from the outset.
Key Takeaways
- Munn’s in forma pauperis status was revoked.
- The dismissal bars another in forma pauperis suit asserting the same claims but does not bar refiling without pauper status after payment of the remainder of the full $405 filing fee.
- Payment of that unspecified remainder within 15 days permits Munn to continue the existing case as though the full fee had been paid initially.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that revocation of in forma pauperis status can restrict a litigant’s ability to pursue the same claims without prepayment while leaving a fee-paid path available. It also underscores a pro se litigant’s obligation under the local rules to keep the clerk informed of a current physical address.
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation without de novo review, and the order states that appellate review of the accepted factual findings and legal conclusions is generally limited to plain error.