In Re: Mary J. Farrier

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedOctober 17, 2019
Docket1:18-cv-00539
StatusUnknown

This text of In Re: Mary J. Farrier (In Re: Mary J. Farrier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Mary J. Farrier, (S.D. Ohio 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

MARY FARRIER, : Case No. 1:18-cv-539 : Appellant, : Judge Timothy S. Black : vs. : : GEORGE LEICHT, : : Appellee. :

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This Order of Dismissal arises in the context of a bankruptcy appeal. Appellant is the Debtor and Appellee is the Trustee in the underlying bankruptcy case. (Doc. 2-2). On July 15, 2019, the Court ordered Appellant to show cause why this bankruptcy appeal should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Doc. 3). On August 2, 2019, Appellant filed a reply stating that she had not filed—or, at least, had not intended to file—this bankruptcy appeal in this first place.1,2 (Doc. 6). Based upon the foregoing, and absent any objection from Appellant, the Court DISMISSES this bankruptcy appeal for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2) (stating that “[a]n appellant’s failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal” is ground for the district court “to act as it considers

1 More specifically, Appellant’s reply states as follows: “I never filed an Appeal in [the] United States District Court. I never paid a filing fee.” (Doc. 6 at 1).

2 Indeed, it appears that Appellant has decided to pursue her concerns, relating to the underlying bankruptcy case, in a separate civil action: Farrier v. Leicht, et al., No. 1:19-cv-588 (S.D. Ohio). appropriate, including dismissing the [bankruptcy] appeal”); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (stating that district courts have the inherent power to dismiss cases for lack of prosecution); Barclay v. U.S. Tr., Hackett, 106 F.

App’x 293, 293 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming the dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal where, as here, the appellant was indifferent to its timely prosecution). The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this bankruptcy appeal is TERMINATED from the docket of this Court. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on Appellant via certified mail, at the following mailing address: P.O. Box 19361,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45219. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 10/17/2019 s/Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge

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

Related

Link v. Wabash Railroad
370 U.S. 626 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Barclay v. United States Trustee
106 F. App'x 293 (Sixth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Mary J. Farrier, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mary-j-farrier-ohsd-2019.