Howe v. Manning et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 03/17/2017. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff. (tjoh, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division FRANK HOWE, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:16CV966 OFFICER MANNING, et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Order entered on December 20, 2016, the Court conditionally docketed Plaintiffs civil action. At that time, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a statement under oath or penalty of perjury that: (A) (B) Identifies the nature of the action; States his beliefthat he is entitled to relief; (C) Avers that he is unable to prepay fees or give security therefor; and, (D) Includes a statement of the assets he possesses. 5ee28U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court provided Plaintiff with an w/orwapawpem affidavit form for this purpose. Additionally, the Court directed Plaintiff to affirm his intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to the collection offees form. The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to comply with either ofthe above directives within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof would result in summary dismissal of the action. Plaintiff has not complied with the orders of this Court. Plaintiff failed to return a completed informa pauperis affidavit form and a consent to collection of fees form. As a result, he does not qualify for informa pauperis status. Furthermore, he has not paid the statutory filing fee for the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Such conduct demonstrates a willful failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. z. M. Hannah Laucf United States District Judge Date: M 1] 2017 Richmond, Virginia

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?