Thomas v. Stallings et al, No. 3:2011cv00627 - Document 6 (E.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 12/7/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division LAMAR ALEXANDER THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. KEN STALLINGS, 3:11CV627 et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Order entered on October 5, 2011, the Court conditionally docketed Lamar Alexander Thomas's civil action. that time, At the Court directed Thomas to submit a statement under oath or penalty of perjury that: (A) (B) (C) (D) Identifies the nature of the action; States his belief that he is entitled to relief; Avers that he is unable to prepay fees or give security therefor; and, Includes a statement of the assets he possesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1). The Court provided Thomas with an in forma pauperis affidavit form for this purpose. Additionally, the Court directed Thomas to affirm his intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to the collection of fees form. The Court warned Thomas that a failure to comply with either of the above directives within thirty (30) days of the date of summary dismissal of the action. entry thereof would result in Thomas has not complied with the orders of this Court. Thomas failed to return a completed in forma pauperis affidavit form and a consent to collection of fees form. qualify for in forma pauperis status. As a result, Furthermore, he has not paid the statutory filing fee for the instant complaint. § 1914(a). See Fed. he does not See 28 U.S.C. Such actions demonstrate a wilful failure to prosecute. R. Civ. DISMISSED WITHOUT P. 41(b). Accordingly, this action will be PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Thomas. It is so ORDERED. IsL Robert E. Payne atf Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Date: Virginia jft) **~-&> ¢*. "7j lt>0
]]>
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.
