Bennie R. Thompson v. Norman Carlson

705 F.2d 868, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28350
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 2, 1983
Docket82-1531
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 705 F.2d 868 (Bennie R. Thompson v. Norman Carlson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bennie R. Thompson v. Norman Carlson, 705 F.2d 868, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28350 (6th Cir. 1983).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After examination of the record and briefs, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 84(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Plaintiff appeals the district court order which dismissed his civil rights case with prejudice. It appears from the record that on April 30, 1981, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted by the United States Magistrate and plaintiff’s complaint was filed in the district court.

Thereafter, on March 30,1982 the district court entered an order vacating the order which granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The order granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis was vacated because the district court determined plaintiff had intentionally misrepresented his financial status in the affidavit to support his request for pauper status. The district court order of March 30, 1982, demanded plaintiff pay the $60 filing fee, and forewarned that if the fee were not paid by April 29,1982, plaintiff’s case would be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s case was, in fact, dismissed with prejudice on June 2, 1982.

Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. This court notes that plaintiff has paid the filing fee for taking this appeal.

Having carefully examined the record and briefs, this court concludes the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s case with prejudice. Harris v. Cuyler, 664 F.2d 388 (3d Cir.1981). For the reasons stated in the district court order of March 30, 1982, and the magistrate’s report and recommendation entered March 5,1982, it is Ordered that the district court order of dismissal be affirmed. Rule 9(d)(2), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Crews v. Oak Grove Casino
W.D. Kentucky, 2025
Hudson v. Malone
E.D. Missouri, 2025
(PC) Witkin v. Thomas
E.D. California, 2024
(PC) Jackson v. Pfeiffer
E.D. California, 2024
Tingler v. Maike
N.D. Ohio, 2023
(PC)Williams v. Soto
E.D. California, 2023
(PC) Thomas v. Okwanoko
E.D. California, 2023
(PC) Howell v. Munoz
E.D. California, 2023
(PC) Howell v. Johnson
E.D. California, 2022
(PC) Martinez v. Baughman
E.D. California, 2021
(PC) Howell v. Villarreal
E.D. California, 2021
Bumpus v. Porter
M.D. Tennessee, 2021
Oquendo v. Geren
594 F. Supp. 2d 9 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Oquendo v. Green
District of Columbia, 2009
Johnson v. Spellings
579 F. Supp. 2d 188 (District of Columbia, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
705 F.2d 868, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennie-r-thompson-v-norman-carlson-ca6-1983.