Bailey v. Obama et al, No. 3:2015cv00331 - Document 14 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 7/30/2015. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bailey v. Obama et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division BRENT SCOTT BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15CV331 BARAK OBAMA, et«/., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Order entered on June 15, 2015, the Court conditionally docketed Plaintiffs civil action. At that time, the Court directed Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff with an in forma pauperis affidavit form for this purpose. Additionally, the Court directed Plaintiff to affirm his intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to collection of fees form. The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to comply with either of the above directives within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof would result in summary dismissal of the action. Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff has not complied with the orders of this Court. Plaintiff failed to return a completed informa pauperis affidavit form and a consent to collection of fees form. As a result, he does not qualify for informa pauperis status. Furthermore, he has not paid the statutory filing fee for the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Such conduct demonstrates a willful failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED Plaintiffs outstanding motions (ECF Nos. 2-7, 10-12) will be DENIED. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: ~7/?*//f Richmond, Virginia
]]>
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.
