Chapman v. Poland et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Complaint (Filing No. 3 ) 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)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BILLIE JOE CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELLEN POLAND, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3205

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On June 9, 2014, the court granted
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and assessed an initial partial filing
fee in the amount of $6.70. (Filing No. 14.) The court warned Plaintiff that his case would
be dismissed if he failed to pay the initial partial filing fee by July 10, 2014. The July 10, 2014
deadline has passed and Plaintiff has not paid the initial partial filing fee or requested an
extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s case is dismissed for failing to
comply with this court’s orders. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b); see also Conley v. Holden, 109
Fed. Appx. 846 (8th Cir. 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. 3) is dismissed without prejudice because
Plaintiff failed to comply with this court’s orders.
2.
Order.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and

DATED this 18th day of July, 2014.
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.