Hicks, Jr. v. Khawaja

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 07/21/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (tjoh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE

^

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division
OZELIA HICKS,

cllrk.

JR.,

Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No.

LAURA S.

3:17CV406

KHAWAJA,

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

By

Memorandum

Order

entered

conditionally docketed

this

directed Ozelia Hicks,

Jr.

on

June

action.
to

At

submit

a

1,

2017,

that

the

Court

time,

the

Court

statement

under oath or

penalty of perjury that:
(A)
(B)

Identifies the nature of the action;
States his belief that he is entitled to relief;

(C)

Avers that he is unable
security therefor; and,

(D)

Includes a

See 28 U.S.C.

to prepay

fees

or give

statement of the assets he possesses.

§ 1915(a)(1).

The Court provided Hicks with an in

fortna pauperis affidavit form for this purpose.

Additionally,

the

Court

directed

Hicks

to

affirm

his

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

to

that

failure

a

within

the

thirty

collection of

to

comply

(3 0)

days

fees

with
of

form.

either

the

date

The

of
of

result in summary dismissal of the action.

Court

the

warned

above

entry

Hicks

directives

thereof

would

Hicks has not complied with the order of this Court.
failed to return the

to collection of fees

for ^

forma pauperis affidavit and the consent

form.^

As a

forma pauperis status.

statutory

filing

§ 1914(a).

prosecute.

fee

Such

Hicks

for

he does not qualify

Furthermore, he has not paid the

the

conduct

result,

instant

demonstrates

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

action.
a

See

willful

28

U.S.C.

failure

to

Accordingly, this action

will be dismissed without prejudice.

The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send

a

copy

of

the

Memorandum

Opinion to Hicks.

/s/

flt'f

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

Richmond, Varginia

^ Instead of following the Court's directives in the June 7,
2017 Memorandum Order, Hicks wrote a letter seeking recusal of
the undersigned.
(ECF No. 5.)
Hicks claims that the Court
exhibited "the appearance of bias, not impartial, racist remarks
and comments" in a prior action.
(Id. at 1.)
Contrary to
Hicks's belief, an unfavorable ruling fails to constitute a
valid basis for a judicial bias claim.
See United States v.
Williamson, 213 F. App'x 235, 237-38 (4th Cir. 2007)
(citing
Liteky v.

United States,

510

U.S.

540,

555

(1994)).

The

Court

harbors no bias against Hicks, and Hicks has not demonstrated
any circumstance where the impartiality of the undersigned might
be reasonably questioned.
Accordingly, his letter request for
recusal

(ECF No.

5)

will be denied.