Butler et al v. Lancaster County Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 59

ORDER- Plaintiff Michael Evans is dismissed from this action. The clerk's office is directed to update its records to reflect that Surgio Butler is the only remaining plaintiff. Evans's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 20 ), filed while Evans was still incarcerated, is denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SERGIO BUTLER and MICHAEL
EVANS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY DEPT OF
CORRECTIONS and LANCASTER
COUNTY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV306

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion.

On

December 9, 2014, the Court ordered plaintiff Michael Evans to
either file a new application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis or pay the court’s $400.00 filing and administrative
fees within 30 days.

The Court noted in its order that Evans was

released from incarceration on November 4, 2014.

Plaintiff was

warned that failure to take either action would result in this
case being dismissed as to him without prejudice and without
further notice.

To date, Evans has not filed a new application

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the Court’s filing
and administrative fees.

IT IS ORDERED:
1.
action.

Plaintiff Michael Evans is dismissed from this

The clerk’s office is directed to update its records to

reflect that Surgio Butler is the only remaining plaintiff.
2.

Evans’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis (Filing No. 20), filed while Evans was still
incarcerated, is denied as moot.
DATED this 11th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

*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-