Smith v. Thorpe et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 11/30/2017. (mailed copy to pro se plaintiff) (nbrow)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT f ~j-·- ~ fl . 1 '~----:.:1 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA I Ir·J r·-· . -.. . --- ·-i~ . i Richmond Division U ! NOV 3 0 ; J I cL\J*·~i~::[f~jj)j~~-=~·;;:-n j ANTONIO DARRELL SMITH, Plaintiff, v. MS. THORPE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 3:17CV673-HEH MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) By Memorandum Order entered on October 26, 2017, the Court conditionally docketed Plaintiffs action. (ECF No. 3.) The Court directed Plaintiff to affirm his intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to 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. By failing to return a consent to collection of fees form, Plaintiff has not complied with the order of this Court. 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). . _I Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. ~ /s/ HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: Nov .3tJ 2011 Richmond, Vir,inia 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?