Bey v. Zurich North America Insurance Company

Filing 32

ORDER denying 31 Motion For All Financial Records. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 6/25/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-459-RJC-DCK
SHEKHEM BEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on a filing by pro se Plaintiff that the Court
will construe as a “Motion For All Financial Records” (Document No. 31) filed June 16, 2017.
This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and
applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion.
Pro se Plaintiff Shekhem Bey (“Plaintiff” or “Bey”) initiated this action with the filing of
a “Complaint” (Document No. 2) on October 26, 2009. On January 28, 2010, the Honorable
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. issued an “Order” (Document No. 5) dismissing this action without prejudice,
based on Plaintiff’s failure to remit the filing fee or a completed application to proceed without
prepaying fees. See also (Document No. 26, p.1).
On December 5, 2011, Judge Conrad issued an “Order” (Document No. 26) denying
several subsequent motions by Plaintiff, including motions seeking financial records. The Court
noted that “Plaintiff’s eligibility to proceed without prepaying filing fees must be resolved before
the Court can decide any other matter in this case. That issue is involved in Plaintiff’s appeal and,
therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case.” (Document No. 26, p.2).

On February 8, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an
unpublished per curiam opinion dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal. See (Document Nos. 27 and 28).
The undersigned further observes that this case has been closed for over seven (7) years,
and that there has been no activity in this case for almost five (5) years. There is no indication that
Defendant has ever been served, or appeared, in this action. Moreover, Judge Conrad’s dismissal
of this action for failure to remit a filing fee or completed application to proceed without prepaying
fees, has been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit.
The undersigned does not find a sufficient legal basis to re-open this matter, or to otherwise
consider or allow the relief Plaintiff seeks in the instant motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion For All Financial Records”
(Document No. 31) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 25, 2017

2