McGee v. Houston

Filing 11

ORDER granting 10 Motion for Reconsideration. The clerk's office is directed to reopen this matter. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JLS, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ERIC MCGEE,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT HOUSTON, Director of
Department of Corrections for the
State of Nebraska,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:13CV3084

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Filing No.
10.) The court dismissed this matter without prejudice on September 4, 2013, because
Plaintiff failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee in this matter. (Filing No. 8.) At the time of
dismissal, there was no indication appearing on the Docket Sheet that the filing fee had
been paid.
In Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, he states that he paid the filing fee on June
17, 2013, and that this matter should not have been dismissed. (Filing No. 10.) The court
has investigated Plaintiff’s statement and finds that Plaintiff did, indeed, submit a filing fee
payment of $5.00 on June 17, 2013, but the payment was not docketed due to an
administrative error. On October 30, 2013, the court updated its records to show that
Plaintiff paid the filing fee. (See Docket Sheet.) In light of this administrative error, the
court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion and direct the clerk’s office to reopen this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Filing
No. 10) is granted, and the clerk’s office is directed to reopen this matter.
DATED this 5th day of November, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief 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.
2