From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rich v. Booth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Jan 9, 2015
Civil Action No. 3:14CV749-HEH (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:14CV749-HEH

01-09-2015

MITCHELL D. RICH, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN BOOTH, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing Action Without Prejudice)

By Memorandum Order entered on November 25, 2014, the Court conditionally docketed Plaintiff's action. 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.

Plaintiff has not complied with the order of this Court. Plaintiff failed to return the consent to collection of fees form. As a result, he does not qualify for in forma 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. Date: Jan. 9, 2015
Richmond, Virginia

/s/_________

HENRY E. HUDSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Rich v. Booth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Jan 9, 2015
Civil Action No. 3:14CV749-HEH (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2015)
Case details for

Rich v. Booth

Case Details

Full title:MITCHELL D. RICH, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN BOOTH, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

Date published: Jan 9, 2015

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:14CV749-HEH (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2015)

Citing Cases

Fed. Title & Mortgage Guar. Co. v. Lowenstein

2 Story's Equity Jur. (11th Ed.) §§ 1024-25. See, also, Donovan v. Smith (N. J. Ch.) 88 A. 167; Lansing v.…

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. RITCHIE ET AL

In general, it may be admitted, that this should constitute part of the decree; but that rule never has…