Frederick Pitchford v. Southland Gaming and Racing
This text of 333 F. App'x 138 (Frederick Pitchford v. Southland Gaming and Racing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Frederick Lee Pitchford appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his employment discrimination complaint. Pitchford’s only argument in his brief on appeal is that the *139 district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion to dismiss, because he failed to' pay the filing fee below. This argument fails. See Rodgers ex rel. Jones v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 1550, 1552 (11th Cir.1986) (noting that court had expressly rejected theory that timely payment of filing fee is jurisdictional requirement).
Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny the pending motion to vacate.
. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
333 F. App'x 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederick-pitchford-v-southland-gaming-and-racing-ca8-2009.