Byars v. Washington Mutual Bank et al, No. 3:2010cv00884 - Document 10 (N.D. Tex. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Gwendolyn Byars. (See Order) (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/7/2010) (skt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Byars v. Washington Mutual Bank et al Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION GWENDOLYN BYARS, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-884-L ORDER Before the court is a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed by pro se Plaintiff Gwendolyn Byars (“Plaintiff”) on May 3, 2010. United States Magistrate Paul D. Stickney entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on June 22, 2010. On May 10, 2010, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to provide financial information in support of her May 3, 2010 request to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has not complied with the magistrate judge’s order, despite the order warning her that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that her complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. To date, she has not sought an extension of time to comply with the order, nor has she paid the required $350 filing fee. The magistrate judge accordingly recommends the court deny her motion and that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. Having reviewed the motion, file, record, and Report in this case, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are correct. The Report is therefore accepted as that of the court. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied, and this action is Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution under Rule 41(b).* In accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment will issue by separate document. It is so ordered this 7th day of July, 2010. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge * Further, it appears that the court may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon-Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2002). The record in this case, however, is undeveloped and the court cannot definitively make that determination. Order – Page 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
