Nzinga Begum v. SFR ATL Owner 1, L.P.

N.D. Ohio

Nzinga Begum v. SFR ATL Owner 1, L.P.

DecidedJune 23, 2026

Docket3:26-cv-00690

StatusUnknown

This text of Nzinga Begum v. SFR ATL Owner 1, L.P. (Nzinga Begum v. SFR ATL Owner 1, L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nzinga Begum v. SFR ATL Owner 1, L.P., (N.D. Ohio 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Nzinga Begum, Case No. 3:26-cv-690

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

SFR ATL Owner 1, L.P.,

Defendant.

Pro se Plaintiff Nzinga Begum filed this civil action against SFR ATL Owner 1, L.P., seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). Because her application to proceed in forma pauperis was deficient, United States Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay issued an Order on May 18, 2026, directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or to complete and submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days in order to proceed with the case. (See Doc. No. 5). In the May 18, 2026 Order, Judge Clay stated, “Plaintiff is notified that failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice.” (Id.). More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s deficiency order. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. See Erby v. Kula, 113 F. App’x 74 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of pro se action for want of prosecution where plaintiff failed to comply with court’s deficiency order); May v. Pike Lake State Park, 8 F. App’x 507, 508 (6th Cir. 2001). I further certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this dismissal could not be taken in good faith. So Ordered. s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Nzinga Begum, Case No. 3:26-cv-690

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

SFR ATL Owner 1, L.P.,

Defendant.

Pro se Plaintiff Nzinga Begum filed this civil action against SFR ATL Owner 1, L.P., seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). Because her application to proceed in forma pauperis was deficient, United States Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay issued an Order on May 18, 2026, directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or to complete and submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days in order to proceed with the case. (See Doc. No. 5). In the May 18, 2026 Order, Judge Clay stated, “Plaintiff is notified that failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice.” (Id.). More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s deficiency order. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. See Erby v. Kula, 113 F. App’x 74 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of pro se action for want of prosecution where plaintiff failed to comply with court’s deficiency order); May v. Pike Lake State Park, 8 F. App’x 507, 508 (6th Cir. 2001). I further certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this dismissal could not be taken in good faith. So Ordered. s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nzinga Begum v. SFR ATL Owner 1, L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nzinga-begum-v-sfr-atl-owner-1-lp-ohnd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack