From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stasher v. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Jan 29, 2016
No.: 3:15-cv-418-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016)

Opinion

No.: 3:15-cv-418-TAV-HBG

01-29-2016

CARLOS STASHER, # 484917, Plaintiff, v. CO 1 MCELROY, CPL. ANTHONY COLLINS, CO 1 COREY KEATHLEY, CO1 LLOYD, CO 1 TIMOTHY RUPPE, and CO 1 LAM, Defendants.


MEMORANDUM & ORDER

On September 29, 2015, the Court entered a Deficiency Order, warning Plaintiff that, unless within thirty (30) days of that date, he paid the full filing fee or submitted the necessary documents to support his in forma pauperis application, the Court would presume that he did not wish to proceed in this action and that he was not indigent, would assess the filing fee, and would order the case dismissed for want of prosecution [Doc. 3]. More than thirty days have passed since entry of the Deficiency Order, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Order or otherwise respond to it.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ASSESSED the filing fee of $350.00 and this action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing a court's authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution).

AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Stasher v. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Jan 29, 2016
No.: 3:15-cv-418-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016)
Case details for

Stasher v. Co.

Case Details

Full title:CARLOS STASHER, # 484917, Plaintiff, v. CO 1 MCELROY, CPL. ANTHONY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Date published: Jan 29, 2016

Citations

No.: 3:15-cv-418-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016)