Moore v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 8/25/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MICHAEL L. MOORE,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:11CV382-HEH

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Denying Motion for Reconsideration)

By Memorandum Order entered on June 14, 2011, the Court conditionally

docketed Plaintiffs Motion for Return of Seized Property as a new civil action. At that
time, the Court directed Plaintiff to return his in forma pauperis affidavit and affirm his

intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to the collection of

fees form. The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to comply with either of the above
directives within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof would result in summary

dismissal of the action.

Plaintiff did not comply with the June 14, 2011 Memorandum Order. Specifically,
Plaintiff failed to return the consent to collection of fees form. As a result, he did not
qualify for in forma pauperis status. Plaintiffs failure to pay the statutory filing fee
demonstrated his lack of interest in prosecuting the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Accordingly, by Memorandum Order signed on July 26, 2011, the Court dismissed the
action without prejudice.

On August 11, 2011, the Court received from Plaintiff an "OBJECTION" to the July
26, 2011 Memorandum Order. The Court construes this document as a Motion to Alter or

Amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In the motion,
Plaintiff explains that he returned the appropriate paperwork to the Court. Specifically,
Plaintiff asserts that he mailed the forms to the Court by delivering them to the prison staff.

Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, however, he has not yet provided the Court with a consent to
collection of fees form.

The Court notes that it received Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The

envelope containing that motion, however, did not include the consent to collection of fees

form. Notably, the cover letter accompanying Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma
pauperis made clear that he only enclosed that motion and a copy of his trust fund account.
It did not indicate that the consent to collection of fees form was also enclosed.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment will be denied.

Plaintiff is advised that if he wishes to proceed against the United States to obtain his seized
property, he may file a new Motion for Return of Seized Property which will receive a new
civil action number from the Court.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

W

IsL

Henry E. Hudson

I*
Date:Htf_f 2..T20//

Richmond, Virginia

United States District Judge