Nails v. Real Estate Services of Dothan, et al (MAG+)
Filing
11
ORDER that: 1. Plaintiff's objection 10 is OVERRULED; 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 9 is ADOPTED; and 3. this case is DISMISSED without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to pay the civil action filing fee within the time allowed by the court. A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/5/2012. (jg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANGELA DENISE NAILS,
Plaintiff,
v.
REAL ESTATE SERVICES OF
DOTHAN and DAN WILLIAMS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-337-WKW
ORDER
On May 21, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 9)
regarding Plaintiff’s failure to pay the civil action filing fee. Plaintiff filed a timely
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. (Doc # 10.) The court reviews
de novo the portion of the Recommendation to which the objections apply. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s objection requests that Defendants be served even if she is not
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 10, at 1.) However, Plaintiff does not
address her failure to pay the required filing fee. Plaintiff has been given ample time
to pay this fee and has failed to do so. Furthermore, it would be a waste of judicial
resources to serve an action upon Defendants that is due to be dismissed for Plaintiff’s
failure to pay her filing fee.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 10) is OVERRULED;
2.
the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 9) is ADOPTED;
and
3.
this case is DISMISSED without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to
pay the civil action filing fee within the time allowed by the court.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 5th day of June, 2012.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?