Prasad v. USDA/FDA et al, No. 3:2017cv00141 - Document 4 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 5/23/2017. Copy to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Prasad v. USDA/FDA et al Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SUNDARI K. PRASAD, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:17CV141 USDA/FDA,e/«/., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Orderentered on March 31, 2017, 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 her belief that she is entitled to relief; Avers that she is unable to prepay fees or give security therefor; and, Includes a statement of the assets she possesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court provided Plaintiff with an informa paiipehs affidavit form for this purpose. Additionally, the Court directed Plaintiff to affirm her intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to the collection of fees form. The Court warned Plaintiffthat 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. 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, she does not qualify for informa pauperis status. Furthermore, she has not paid the statutory filing fee for the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Such conduct demonstrates a willful Dockets.Justia.com failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Ordershallaccompany this Memorandum Opinion. /j If Richmond, Virgima M. Hannah United States District Judge
]]>
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.
