Howard v. No Respondents Named

Filing 4

ORDER of Dismissal. ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 4/4/13. (sgrim)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-00501-BNB DOSSIE HOWARD, Applicant, v. [NO RESPONDENTS NAMED], Respondent. ORDER OF DISMISSAL Applicant, Dossie Howard, initiated this action on February 26, 2013, by submitting a letter to the Court asserting that he should have been released from custody from the Denver Sheriff’s Department to begin home detention on January 6, 2013. In an Order entered February 27, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland directed Mr. Howard to cure certain enumerated deficiencies in this action within thirty days. Specifically, Mr. Howard was ordered to submit a Prisoner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or, in the alternative, to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Mr. Howard was also instructed to submit an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the court-approved form. Magistrate Judge Boland warned Mr. Howard in the February 27 Order that failure to cure the designated deficiencies by the court-ordered deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. Mr. Howard has now failed to submit any documents in compliance with the February 27, 2013 Order and has not paid the $5.00 filing fee. Indeed, Mr. Howard has not communicated with the Court since he initiated this action. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Mr. Howard’s failure to comply with the February 27, 2013 Order Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiencies and for failure to prosecute. DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 4th day of April , 2013. BY THE COURT: s/Lewis T. Babcock LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge United States District Court 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?