THOMPSON v. REICHERT
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 23 Motion to Dismiss Notice of Appeal. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 10/11/2011. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CHARLES E. THOMPSON,
MAYOR, CITY OF MACON,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-278 (MTT)
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss his Notice of
Appeal. (Doc. 23). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED as MOOT.
On July 25, 2011, the Court entered an Order denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismissed his claim without prejudice. (Docs.
10,11). The Plaintiff’s Motion was denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because he
had three prior strikes and was not in imminent dangers of serious injury at the time he
requested to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 5, 2011, the Court denied the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 13). The Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal of the
Court’s Orders (Docs. 10,13) was filed August 15, 2011 (Doc. 15).
On August 26, 2011, the Clerk of Court for the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit sent the Plaintiff a letter ordering him to pay the filing fee within 14
days or have his appeal dismissed without further notice. (Doc. 19). On September 13,
2011, the Clerk of Court entered a dismissal stating that, “[p]ursuant to the 11th Cir. R.
42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the appellant
Charles E. Thompson has failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court
within the time fixed by the rules, effective September 13, 2011.” (Doc. 20). The
Plaintiff filed the Motion to Dismiss his Notice of Appeal on September 21, 2011. (Doc.
23). However, because the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has
already dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal, the Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 23) is DENIED as
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of October, 2011.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?