Holz v. Godbold

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

TIMOTHY EDWARD HOLZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-675-SLP ) MELISSA GODBOLD, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R This matter is before the Court pursuant to its August 6, 2025 Order [Doc. No. 7] requiring Plaintiff to pay the requisite filing fee no later than August 27, 2025. In that Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee nor has he requested an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, this action is hereby dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with the Court’s Order [Doc. No. 7]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007) (sua sponte dismissal permitted where a plaintiff fails to comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders).1

1 Plaintiff states his claims are based on events in July of 2024, so it appears the statute of limitations has not expired for his tort claims or any § 1983 claim through which he alleges constitutional violations. See 12 Okla. Stat. § 95(A)(3); see also Heuston v. Ballard, 578 F. App’x 791, 792 (10th Cir. 2014) (noting the applicable limitations period for a § 1983 claim in Oklahoma is two years). Accordingly, the Court may dismiss this action without consideration of the criteria applicable to a dismissal with prejudice. See AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with the Court’s Order. A separate judgment shall be entered contemporaneously herewith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28" day of August, 2025.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE