Carolina v. Lightner et al
ORDER denying 8 Motion Medical Evaluation. See attached memorandum of decision. Plaintiff has failed to submit the required filing fee by August 17, 2012. Therefore, the clerk is directed to close this case pursuant to the attached order. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on August 20, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
TYRONE DOUGLAS CAROLINA
RIKEL LIGHTNER, ET AL.
CASE NO. 3:12cv162 (VLB)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On July 27, 2012, the court filed its ruling denying the plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis because three cases or appeals filed by
the plaintiff had been dismissed as frivolous prior to the filing of this action. The
court notified the plaintiff that the complaint would be dismissed if he did not
submit the filing fee on or before August 17, 2012.
The plaintiff has failed to deliver the filing fee to the court as specified.
Instead, he has filed a motion for a medical evaluation. The plaintiff claims that
he suffers from an enlarged heart and requires surgery or a heart transplant.
Attached to the motion are medical records that include cardiovascular tests
performed in April 2008. The results of those tests reflect that the plaintiff
suffered from Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy and the plaintiff’s treating physician
recommended medical therapy. These findings do not demonstrate that the
plaintiff suffered from a serious threat of imminent harm at the time he filed this
action or that he requires surgery or a heart transplant due to the 2008 diagnosis
of his heart condition.
The Motion for a Medical Evaluation [Doc. No. 8] IS DENIED.
Because the plaintiff has not submitted the filing fee, the complaint is dismissed
without prejudice. The Clerk shall close this case.
SO ORDERED this 20 day of August, 2012 at Hartford, Connecticut.
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
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?