Machado v. Vistaloft / Carmel Properties

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/5/13. (dkals, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-02629-BNB CHRISTIAN P. MACHADO, Plaintiff, v. VISTALOFT/CARMEL PROPERTIES, Defendant. ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff, Christian Machado, resides in Saint Cloud, Florida. He initiated this action on September 25, 2013, by submitting pro se a Title VII Complaint. On September 27, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland directed Mr. Machado to cure certain deficiencies in this action. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland instructed Mr. Valdez to file a Title VII Complaint with Plaintiff’s original signature, the address of Defendant, and the Notice of Right to Sue as required by paragraph 8 of the complaint. Magistrate Judge Boland warned Mr. Machado in the September 27 Order that failure to cure the designated deficiencies by the courtordered deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. On October 25, 2013, Mr. Machado requested an extension of time to cure the deficiencies [ECF No. 5]. Magistrate Judge Boland granted Plaintiff’s motion in a minute order on October 29, 2013, and allowed Mr. Machado an additional thirty days to cure the designated deficiencies [ECF No. 6]. Mr. Machado has failed to submit any documents in compliance with the September 27 Order and October 29 Minute Order. Furthermore, Mr. Machado has not communicated with the Court since he requested an extension of time on October 25, 2013. The action therefore will be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure of Plaintiff, Christian Machado, to comply with the September 27 Order Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiencies and the October 29 Minute Order, and for failure to prosecute. It is FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Mr. Machado files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 5th day of December , 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?