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)
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?