Sherman v. Eagleton
ORDER dismissing 1 Petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 5/23/2017. (mwal) Modified to edit text on 5/23/2017 (mwal).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Corey Sherman, #289202,
Warden Willie Eagleton,
C/A No. 1:17-761-HMH
Corey Sherman (“Petitioner”), an inmate housed at Evans Correctional Institution,
proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
On March 29, 2017, the Court ordered Petitioner to pay the five dollar ($5) filing fee for a
habeas corpus action or complete and return the attached Form AO 240 (application to
proceed in forma pauperis). [ECF No. 5]. Petitioner was warned that failure to provide the
necessary information within a specific time period may subject the case to dismissal. Id.
Petitioner failed to respond. On April 26, 2017, the Court sent a second order directing
Petitioner to pay the five dollar ($5) filing fee for a habeas corpus action or complete and
return the attached Form AO 240. [ECF No. 9]. Petitioner was again warned that failure to
provide the necessary information within a specific time period may subject the case to
dismissal. Id. The time for a response expired on May 17, 2017, and Petitioner did not
respond. As Petitioner has failed to prosecute this case and has failed to comply with an
order of this Court, the case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 23, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within the time
period set forth under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?