HASENBANK v. MAINE GENERAL HOSPITAL HARTHSIDE

D. Maine

HASENBANK v. MAINE GENERAL HOSPITAL HARTHSIDE

DecidedFebruary 10, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00029

StatusUnknown

This text of HASENBANK v. MAINE GENERAL HOSPITAL HARTHSIDE (HASENBANK v. MAINE GENERAL HOSPITAL HARTHSIDE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

HASENBANK v. MAINE GENERAL HOSPITAL HARTHSIDE, (D. Me. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

HERBERT REX HASENBANK JR., ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) No. 2:23-cv-00029-LEW ) MAINE GENERAL ) HOSPITAL et al., ) ) Defendants )

RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL

Pro se Plaintiff Herbert Rex Hasenbank Jr. initiated this suit on January 13, 2023, but did not pay this Court’s filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). See ECF No. 1. On January 18, 2023, I entered an order directing Hasenbank to either pay the filing fee or file an IFP application by February 1, 2023, and warning him that if he failed to do so his case would be subject to dismissal. See ECF No. 2. The Clerk’s Office mailed a copy of my order to Hasenbank, but he did not pay the filling fee or file an IFP application by the deadline; nor has he done so since then. Hasenbank’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an IFP application warrants the dismissal of his action without prejudice. See, e.g., Oliver v. Versant Power, No. 1:21-cv-00225-JAW, 2021 WL 4942861, at *1-2 (D. Me. Oct. 21, 2021) (rec. dec.), (dismissing a plaintiff’s case without prejudice where the plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file an IFP application), aff’d, 2021 WL 5371550 (D. Me. Nov. 17, 2021); Lazore v. Harrigan, No. 1:21-cv-00239-GZS, 2021 WL 4761985, at *1-2 (D. Me. Oct. 11, 2021) (rec. dec.) (same), aff’d, 2021 WL 5182663 (D. Me. Nov. 8, 2021). Accordingly, I recommend that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice

NOTICE A party may file objections to those specified portions of a Magistrate Judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the District Court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.

Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Court and to appeal the District Court’s order.

Dated: February 10, 2023

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

HERBERT REX HASENBANK JR., ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) No. 2:23-cv-00029-LEW ) MAINE GENERAL ) HOSPITAL et al., ) ) Defendants )

RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL

Pro se Plaintiff Herbert Rex Hasenbank Jr. initiated this suit on January 13, 2023, but did not pay this Court’s filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). See ECF No. 1. On January 18, 2023, I entered an order directing Hasenbank to either pay the filing fee or file an IFP application by February 1, 2023, and warning him that if he failed to do so his case would be subject to dismissal. See ECF No. 2. The Clerk’s Office mailed a copy of my order to Hasenbank, but he did not pay the filling fee or file an IFP application by the deadline; nor has he done so since then. Hasenbank’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an IFP application warrants the dismissal of his action without prejudice. See, e.g., Oliver v. Versant Power, No. 1:21-cv-00225-JAW, 2021 WL 4942861, at *1-2 (D. Me. Oct. 21, 2021) (rec. dec.), (dismissing a plaintiff’s case without prejudice where the plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file an IFP application), aff’d, 2021 WL 5371550 (D. Me. Nov. 17, 2021); Lazore v. Harrigan, No. 1:21-cv-00239-GZS, 2021 WL 4761985, at *1-2 (D. Me. Oct. 11, 2021) (rec. dec.) (same), aff’d, 2021 WL 5182663 (D. Me. Nov. 8, 2021). Accordingly, I recommend that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice

NOTICE A party may file objections to those specified portions of a Magistrate Judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the District Court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.

Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Court and to appeal the District Court’s order.

Dated: February 10, 2023

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

HASENBANK v. MAINE GENERAL HOSPITAL HARTHSIDE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hasenbank-v-maine-general-hospital-harthside-med-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack