FINCH v. USA

Filing 10

Order of Dismissal. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (dls) Service on parties made. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7017 1450 0000 1346 4773)

ONEGEF:.lI.
llntbe @nite! $rtatts @owt otfr[erul [.lsims FILED
No. l8-31lC
(Filed: May 2,2018)

MAY

- 2 2018

U.S. COURT OF
FFDERAL CLAIMS

)
)
)
)
)

DRAKEFINCH,
Plaintiff,
v.)

)
)
)
)
)

THEUNITEDSTATES,
Defendant.
)

DISMISSAL ORDER
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, French
Robertson Unit in Abilene, Texas filed this civil action against the United States of
America on February 28, 2018. See ECF Nos. l, 2. The court issued an order on March
5,2018, granting plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma p4gpglig and directing plaintiff to

Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, on or before
April 4, 2018, plaintiff is ORDERED to FILE the enclosed
Prisoner Authorization Form to authorize payment of the
full filing fee from the prisoner's prison trust account.[]

If plaintiff fails to comply with this

order within thirty (30)
days, this action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure
to prosecute under Rule 41 of Rules ofthe United States Court
of Federal Claims.
ECF No. 6. (order) (footnote omitted).

Plaintiff s prisoner authorization form was due to have been filed on April 4,
2018, thirty days from the filing of the court's March 5, 2018. On April 3, 2018,
defendant filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rules l2(b)(l) and (6) of the Rules of the

701? 1'{50 EE0E 1,3'{E g??3

United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Plaintiff s response to defendant's
motion to dismiss is due on May I , 20 I 8. I As of the filing of this order, plaintiff has not
responded to the court's March 5, 2018 order. Accordingly, pursuant to RCFC 4l(b), the
Clerk's Office is directed to ENTER final judgment DISMISSING plaintiff s complaint,
with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PATRICIA E. CAMPB
Judge

'

The court has reviewed the govemment's motion in detail and it appears that
defendant has demonstrated that plaintiff s complaint should be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, even ifplaintifffiled its prisoner authorization
form, on the basis of the authorities cited by defendant, in the absence ofany contrary
precedent proffered by plaintiff, the court would be obliged to grant defendant's
dispositive motion dismissing the subject matter.