Hollis v. Webber, No. 4:2021cv01150 - Document 10 (N.D. Tex. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: This Court concludes that this in forma pauperis application should be, and it is hereby, DENIED. The Court ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Ray's recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. Hollis's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 11/23/2021) (bdb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hollis v. Webber Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION DRUE ALLEN HOLLIS Plaintiff, v. No. 4:21-cv-1150-P DENNIS ANDREW WEBBER, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Before the Court are Plaintiff Drue Allen Hollis’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and United States Magistrate Judge Ray’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. ECF Nos. 5, 7. For the following reasons, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations and DENIES the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. On October 14, 2021, Hollis filed this action against Dennis Andrew Webber, seeking $38,000,000 in damages for violations of his civil rights. Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 1. The action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ray, per Special Order 3. On October 15, Magistrate Judge Ray ordered Hollis to either pay the court filing fee or to file an appropriate Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. ECF No. 4. Hollis did not comply with this order and Magistrate Judge Ray issued Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations recommending that Hollis’s action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. ECF No. 5. Hollis did not file objections within fourteen days of this order; rather, he filed a “Final Order of Summary Judgment” and “Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.” ECF Nos. 6–7. Upon review, neither the “Final Order of Summary Judgment” and “Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Dockets.Justia.com Costs” present objections or arguments that would undermine Magistrate Judge Ray’s Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendations. Hollis’s in forma pauperis application is not the Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Long Form) (AO239) that Magistrate Judge Ray ordered he file. Further, his application contains none of the information required in an in forma pauperis application. It only contains a statement that Hollis is unable to pay court fees and then demands $26,308,158,000,990. As a result, this Court concludes that this in forma pauperis application should be, and it is hereby, DENIED. Therefore, Hollis has still not complied with Magistrate Judge Ray’s order to pay the court fees or file an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Long Form) (AO239). The Court ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Ray’s recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Accordingly, PREJUDICE. Hollis’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT SO ORDERED on this 23rd day of November, 2021. ______________________________ Mark T. Pittman United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
