Dollar v. Carter et al

Filing 70

ORDER DENYING 69 Motion to Stay and DENYING 69 Motion for Extension of Time. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 9/29/2011. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WESLEY EUGENE DOLLAR,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN ALAN CARTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-208 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the Case and
Motion for Extension of Time (the “Motions”). (Doc. 69). For the following reasons, the
Motions are DENIED.
This Court has previously denied several of the Plaintiff’s Motions for
Reconsideration of the Court’s July 26, 2011 Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation to grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Docs. 62, 67).
Moreover, the Court has previously denied the Plaintiff’s Motions to Appeal In Forma
Pauperis (Docs. 63, 68), and for the reasons set forth in this Court’s Order adopting the
Recommendation dismissing the case, the Court found, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), the appeal was not taken in
“good faith” (Doc. 54).
The Plaintiff’s Motion at issue here states that he has an attorney to take over
this civil action and asks the Court to stay the case and requests a time extension.
However, this Court is unable to ascertain from the Motions what portion of the civil

action the Plaintiff wants stayed or what time frame the Plaintiff requests to be
extended.
Therefore, since the Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 56), the Court
directs the Plaintiff’s attention to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit’s September 15, 2011 Procedural Letter advising him of the filing fee
requirement (Doc. 66). If the Plaintiff has obtained an attorney, as his Motions assert,
then his attorney should file an entry of appearance and handle the filing fee costs in
order for the Plaintiff’s appeal to move forward.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the Case and Motion for Extension of
Time are DENIED. (Doc. 69).
SO ORDERED, this 29th day of September, 2011.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

bnw

2