Braddy v. United States Penitentiary Atlanta, No. 1:2010cv00779 - Document 3 (N.D. Ga. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION that this case is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to obey a lawful order of this Court. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 6/1/10. (dr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION THOMAS M . BRADDY, Jr ., Inmate No . 58886-019, Plaintiff, MANDAMUS 28 U.S.C . § 1361 CIVIL ACTION NO . 1 :10-CV-779-TWT V. Fl~ ED IN C HAMBE 6 THOMAS W. THRA6 JR . U. S. D. C. A#ie i um JAMES . HATTEN , By . 4~4 0 UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY WARDEN AND STAFF, Defendants . ORDER AND OPINION On March 12, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a document to the Court styled "Motion for Injunction Order" that the Clerk docketed as a fro se mandamus action pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1361 . [Doc . 1]. On April 7, 2010, this Court instructed Plaintiff to submit the full filing fee of $350 .00 or execute and return a financial affidavit seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis that included : (1) an authorization allowing his custodian to withdraw funds from his inmate account ; (2) a completed certificate signed by an authorized institutional officer regarding the current balance in his inmate account ; and (3) a certified copy of his inmate trust account balance for the six-month period preceding the filing of the instant action certified by an authorized institutional officer . Plaintiff was AO 72A (R ev .8/ 8 2) .0LZ018 Cler! instructed to comply with the Court's directives within thirty (30) days or face dismissal of his action . As of May 27, 2010, Plaintiff has not submitted either the $350 .00 filing fee or a request to proceed in forma pau p eris that complies with this Court's instructions . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to LR 41 .3 (A)(2), NDGa, this action is here by DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs failure to obey a lawful order of this Court . IT IS SO ORD ERED this j day of ~, 2010 . THOMAS W. THRASH, JR . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 AO 72A ( Rev. 8 / 62)
]]>
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.
