Wilson v. Hood

Filing 13

ORDER dismissing 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 8/15/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Christopher Darnell Wilson, #316742, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) Judge Robert E. Hood, et al. in expanded ) cases, and Warden McFadden, ) ) Respondents. ) ) C/A No. 1:17-1468-HMH ORDER Petitioner, an inmate housed at Lieber Correctional Institution, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 26, 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), and to fully complete, sign, and return the attached § 2254 habeas petition. [ECF No. 5]. Petitioner did not respond. On July 21, 2017, the Court sent a second order asking Petitioner to fully complete, sign, and return the attached § 2254 habeas petition, and pay the five dollar ($5) filing fee for a habeas corpus action or complete and return the attached Form AO 240. [ECF No. 9]. The time for a response expired on August 11, 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. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina August 15, 2017 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. 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?