From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swint v. Redfield

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 16, 2021
1:21-CV-4500 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-CV-4500 (LTS)

08-16-2021

ROBERT JAMES SWINT; CHRYSTAL MARIE SWINT, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT R. REDFIELD, et al., Defendants.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

By order dated June 3, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff, within thirty days, to submit a completed request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) or pay the $402 in fees to bring a civil action in this court. The order specified that failure to comply would result in dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff has not filed an IFP application or paid the fees. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915.

Plaintiff Robert James Swint is the only plaintiff to have signed the original and amended complaints. The Court understands that Plaintiff Robert James Swint is the only plaintiff here.

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Swint v. Redfield

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 16, 2021
1:21-CV-4500 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2021)
Case details for

Swint v. Redfield

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT JAMES SWINT; CHRYSTAL MARIE SWINT, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT R…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Aug 16, 2021

Citations

1:21-CV-4500 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2021)