United States of America v. $1,000.00 refunded to Mango Creek Properties, Inc. from GBS Partners,Inc. seized on January 28, 2010 et al

Filing 60

ORDER - Williams' interlocutory appeal 54 regarding memorandum and order Filing No. 49 and clerks entry of default Filing No. 50 is denied. William's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Filing No. 55 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (TEL)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) $1,000.00 refunded to Mango ) Creek Properties, Inc., from ) GBS Partners, Inc., seized on ) January 28, 2010; et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________) 8:11CV372 ORDER This matter is before the Court upon claimant Shannon Williams’ interlocutory appeal regarding memorandum and order Filing No. 49 and clerk’s entry of default Filing No. 50 (Filing No. 54) and motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Filing No. 55). William’s interlocutory appeal and motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis will be denied because the orders they address are not final pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and do not satisfy the collateral order doctrine. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 (1989). See Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Significantly, a clerk’s entry of default is not a final order of the Court or an appealable collateral order. Cir. 1986). United States v. Hansen, 795 F.2d 35, 37 (7th Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Williams’ interlocutory appeal regarding memorandum and order Filing No. 49 and clerk’s entry of default Filing No. 50 is (Filing No. 54) is denied. 2) William’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Filing No. 55) is denied. DATED this 27th day of March, 2012. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom ____________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court -2-

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?