Newman v. Myers

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Complaint (filing no. 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 John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TERRELL E. NEWMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE MYERS, Director of Douglas
County Correction,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3097

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On May 7, 2013, 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 June 5, 2013, 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 July
5, 2013. (Id.)
The July 5, 2013, deadline has passed 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 orders. 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 19th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
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