Smith v. Grogan

N.D. Ohio

Smith v. Grogan

DecidedOctober 17, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-01298

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Grogan (Smith v. Grogan) 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

Smith v. Grogan, (N.D. Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Larry Frederick Smith, Jr., Case No. 3:24-cv-1298

Plaintiff

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Raymond A. Grogan, Jr., et al.,

Defendants

Pro se Plaintiff Larry Frederick Smith, Jr. filed a prisoner complaint in this case for violation of civil rights. (Doc. No. 1). But he did not pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, in an Order dated September 12, 2024, sent to Plaintiff at the address he provided, Plaintiff was ordered either to pay the filing fee of $405 or to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis in order to proceed with the case. (See Doc. No. 2). The Order afforded Plaintiff 30 days from the date of the Order to comply and expressly notified Plaintiff that his case may be dismissed without further notice if he failed to do so. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s deficiency order, and the mailing has not been returned as “undeliverable.” Accordingly, I now dismiss this action without prejudice for want of prosecution. See Davis v. United States, 73 F. App’x 804 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of inmate’s in forma pauperis action where inmate failed to comply with deficiency order); May v. Pike Lake State Park, 8 F. App’x 507, 508 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of pro se case for want of prosecution where the plaintiff failed to comply with court’s “readily comprehended” deficiency order). 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

Larry Frederick Smith, Jr., Case No. 3:24-cv-1298

Plaintiff

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Raymond A. Grogan, Jr., et al.,

Defendants

Pro se Plaintiff Larry Frederick Smith, Jr. filed a prisoner complaint in this case for violation of civil rights. (Doc. No. 1). But he did not pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, in an Order dated September 12, 2024, sent to Plaintiff at the address he provided, Plaintiff was ordered either to pay the filing fee of $405 or to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis in order to proceed with the case. (See Doc. No. 2). The Order afforded Plaintiff 30 days from the date of the Order to comply and expressly notified Plaintiff that his case may be dismissed without further notice if he failed to do so. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s deficiency order, and the mailing has not been returned as “undeliverable.” Accordingly, I now dismiss this action without prejudice for want of prosecution. See Davis v. United States, 73 F. App’x 804 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of inmate’s in forma pauperis action where inmate failed to comply with deficiency order); May v. Pike Lake State Park, 8 F. App’x 507, 508 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of pro se case for want of prosecution where the plaintiff failed to comply with court’s “readily comprehended” deficiency order). not be taken in good faith.

So Ordered.

s/Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Grogan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-grogan-ohnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack