Russell v. Houston et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with this court's orders. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAE)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA PATRICK RONALD RUSSELL, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT HOUSTON, DENNIS BAKEWELL, MELVIN ROUF, CURTIS MOFFAT, MICHAEL EDISON, and MARK DANNER, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:09CV3249
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on its own motion. On December 8, 2009, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter along with a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ("IFP"). (Filing Nos. 1 and 2.) On December 11, 2009, the court granted Plaintiff's IFP Motion and assessed an initial partial filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). (Filing No. 6.) In doing so, the court warned Plaintiff that his case would be subject to dismissal if he failed to pay the initial partial filing fee by January 10, 2010. (Id.) It is now February 5, 2010, and Plaintiff has not paid the initial partial filing fee in this matter. (See Docket Sheet.) Therefore, Plaintiff's case is dismissed for failing to comply with the court's December 11, 2009, Memorandum and Order. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b); see also Conley v. Holden, No. 03-3908, 2004 WL 2202452, at *1 (8th Cir. Sept. 21, 2004) (affirming district court's dismissal of inmate's case for failing to pay the assessed initial partial filing fee).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint (filing no. 1) is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with this court's orders. 2. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. DATED this 5th day of February, 2010. BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the 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?