Jeffrey Amick v. Lauri Ashlock

Eighth Circuit

Jeffrey Amick v. Lauri Ashlock

113 F. App'x 191

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 2004

Docket04-1171

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 F. App'x 191 (Jeffrey Amick v. Lauri Ashlock) 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.

Bluebook

Jeffrey Amick v. Lauri Ashlock, 113 F. App'x 191 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Jeffrey Amick (Amick) *192 appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, as well as the court’s denial of reconsideration. We discern no error in the district court’s orders, given Amick’s failure to explain— after being given the chance to do so in objections to the magistrate judge’s report and in his motion for reconsideration—why he continued to be unable to pay the initial partial filing fee ordered by the court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Cosby v. Meadors, 351 F.3d 1324, 1328-31 (10th Cir.2003) (affirming dismissal of prisoner’s complaint for failure to pay assessed filing fee), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2109, 158 L.Ed.2d 720 (2004); COMSAT Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 246 F.3d 1101, 1105 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review for reconsideration motions); Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (sua sponte dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We modify the dismissal to be without prejudice.

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Jeffrey Amick (Amick) *192 appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, as well as the court’s denial of reconsideration. We discern no error in the district court’s orders, given Amick’s failure to explain— after being given the chance to do so in objections to the magistrate judge’s report and in his motion for reconsideration—why he continued to be unable to pay the initial partial filing fee ordered by the court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Cosby v. Meadors, 351 F.3d 1324, 1328-31 (10th Cir.2003) (affirming dismissal of prisoner’s complaint for failure to pay assessed filing fee), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2109, 158 L.Ed.2d 720 (2004); COMSAT Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 246 F.3d 1101, 1105 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review for reconsideration motions); Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (sua sponte dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We modify the dismissal to be without prejudice.

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 F. App'x 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffrey-amick-v-lauri-ashlock-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack