Duru v. Charles Schwab Investment Group

Filing 8

Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations re: 7 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Rose Adanma Duru. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismisses without prejudice this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a court order. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 1/30/2015) (tlm)

Download PDF
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ROSE ADANMA DURU, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES SCHWAB INVESTMENT GROUP, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-3652-L-BF ORDER This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney, who entered Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on December 22, 2014, recommending that the court deny Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismiss the action if Plaintiff failed to pay the full filing fee within fourteen days of his recommendation. Plaintiff has filed no objections, and as of the date of this order, she has not paid the filing fee. Having reviewed the pleadings, file, and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismisses without prejudice this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a court order. Order - Page 1 It is so ordered this 30th day of January, 2015. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order - Page 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?