Vittatoe v. Mathes
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in following order. Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on 3/6/15. (c/m)(ABF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
FRED L. VITTATOE,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRIS MATHES, Sheriff,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.: 2:14-cv-230-RLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Fred L. Vittatoe, a prisoner in the Carter County Detention Center, filed what was
deemed to be a prose application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(Doc. 1). However, because the petitioner failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or seek in
forma pauperis status, the Court entered a Deficiency Order advising that he must either
pay the fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis and also warning him that, unless he
paid the fee or filed the motion within thirty (30) days, the Court would assume that he
did not wish to proceed in the matter and would dismiss his case without prejudice (Doc.
2).
More than thirty days have passed, and petitioner has failed to submit either the
filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application, as he was instructed to do, or
otherwise respond to the February 22, 2015 Order.
Accordingly, the Court assumes that petitioner has no desire to proceed in this
habeas corpus case and will DISMISS his petition without prejudice for want of
prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b).
Finally, the Court concludes that petitioner has failed to make a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right because jurists of reason would not
disagree about the correctness of this procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473 (2000); Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2001); Porterfield v. Bell, 258
F.3d 484, 487 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, the Court will also DENY issuance of a certificate
ofappealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
A separate judgment will enter.
ENTER:
~o~~
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?