Robinson v. Burton

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for want of prosecution Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

Download PDF
Case 3:20-cv-12019-RHC-RSW ECF No. 4, PageID.18 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DARRYL A. ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. Case No. 20-12019 DUANE BURTON, Respondent. _______________________________/ ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION On July 6, 2020, Petitioner Darryl A. Robinson filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. (ECF No. 1.) On August 4, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen ordered Petitioner to submit the filing fee of $5.00 or to apply for permission to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty-one days of his order. (ECF No. 2.) Magistrate Judge Whalen advised Petitioner that failure to comply with his order could result in the dismissal of this action. (Id.) Although the order was mailed to Petitioner at his current address, (see August 7, 2020 Docket Entry), he has not paid the filing fee, applied for permission to proceed in forma pauperis, or communicated with the court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Mich. LR 41.2; Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-633 (1962). s/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: November 17, 2020 / Case 3:20-cv-12019-RHC-RSW ECF No. 4, PageID.19 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 2 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, November 17, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (810) 292-6522 S:\Cleland\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\20-12019.ROBINSON.OrderDismissingPetition.BH.RMK.docx /

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?