Harris v. Hoffman et al
Filing
26
ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 10/29/2015. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MASON HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:15-cv-52
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
vs.
MR. HOFFMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
On September 25, 2015, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s August 17,
2015 Report and Recommendation to revoke the prisoner-plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
status on the ground that plaintiff is a “three-striker” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). (Doc. 25; see also Doc. 24). Plaintiff was ordered “to pay the full $400.00
fee ($350 filing fee plus a $50 administrative fee) required to commence this action . . .
within thirty days of the date of filing of this Order” and was “notified that his failure to
pay the full $400 fee within the requisite thirty-day period will result in the dismissal of
his action.” (Doc. 25) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff has not paid the fee required to
commence this action, and the deadline for doing so has passed.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons:
(1) Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for want of prosecution;
(2) Plaintiff’s pending motions (Docs. 12, 13) are DENIED as moot;
(3) The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing
reasons an appeal of this Court’s Order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis;
(4) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this civil action is
TERMINATED in this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/29/15
s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
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?