From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldstein v. Clarke

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Nov 20, 2017
Civil Action No. 3:17CV658 (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:17CV658

11-20-2017

DAVID SCOTT GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD CLARKE, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

By Memorandum Order entered on October 12, 2017, the Court conditionally docketed Plaintiff's action. At that time, 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 the above directive within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof would result in summary dismissal of the action.

Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's order to return a 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). Plaintiff's 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.

/s/_________

John A. Gibney, Jr.

United States District Judge Date: 11/20/17
Richmond, Virginia


Summaries of

Goldstein v. Clarke

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Nov 20, 2017
Civil Action No. 3:17CV658 (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 2017)
Case details for

Goldstein v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:DAVID SCOTT GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD CLARKE, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Nov 20, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:17CV658 (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 2017)