Mobley v. Romanowski et al
Filing
6
ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DALE MOBLEY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-CV-11141
HONORABLE AVERN COHN
v.
KEN ROMANOWSKI, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Dale
Mobley, an inmate at the Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan, says
that he was subject to prison assault in October, 2014 in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. He names the warden and other parties as the defendants in this
action and seeks monetary damages.
At the time he filed his complaint, the plaintiff did not pay the required $350.00
filing fee, nor did he submit a proper application to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605
(6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th
Cir. 2013). The plaintiff also did not submit copies for service of the complaint upon the
defendants. As such, on March 30, 2016, the Court issued deficiency orders requiring
the plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis
application and to submit three additional copies of the complaint within 30 days (by
April 29, 2016). The Court’s orders provided that if the plaintiff did not do so within that
time period, his case would be dismissed. (Doc. 3).
The Court’s records reveal that the plaintiff has failed to correct the filing
deficiencies within the allotted time for doing so. Accordingly, the complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court makes no determination as to the
merits of the complaint.
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 27, 2016
Detroit, Michigan
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?