John James Jaakkola v. Stephanie J. Snyder Others, (Party Id Not Indicated)

889 F.2d 1087, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 17285, 1989 WL 137855
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedNovember 16, 1989
Docket89-1330
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 889 F.2d 1087 (John James Jaakkola v. Stephanie J. Snyder Others, (Party Id Not Indicated)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John James Jaakkola v. Stephanie J. Snyder Others, (Party Id Not Indicated), 889 F.2d 1087, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 17285, 1989 WL 137855 (6th Cir. 1989).

Opinion

889 F.2d 1087

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
John James JAAKKOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Stephanie J. SNYDER, et al.; Defendants-Appellees,
Others, (Party ID Not Indicated), Defendants.

No. 89-1330.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 16, 1989.

Before MERRITT, Chief Judge, KENNEDY, Circuit Judge, and ROBERT M. McRAE, Jr., Senior District Judge.*

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

John James Jaakkola, a pro se Michigan state prisoner, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his complaint for failure to comply with the local rules of the district court. Jaakkola's complaint was twice returned to him with instructions to file the correct number of copies, list the names and addresses of all defendants, and either submit a filing fee or a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon Jaakkola's continued failure to comply, the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to its refiling in the proper form.

Upon consideration, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or authority in dismissing this complaint without prejudice. Accordingly, the district court's order is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Robert M. McRae, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation

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

Related

Peters v. Peters
W.D. Michigan, 2025
Proch v. King
E.D. Michigan, 2022
Frazier v. Nagy
E.D. Michigan, 2021
Bell v. Bryant
E.D. Michigan, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
889 F.2d 1087, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 17285, 1989 WL 137855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-james-jaakkola-v-stephanie-j-snyder-others-party-id-not-indicated-ca6-1989.