Hicks, Jr. v. Khawaja, No. 3:2017cv00406 - Document 6 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 07/21/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hicks, Jr. v. Khawaja Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division OZELIA HICKS, cllrk. JR., Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. LAURA S. 3:17CV406 KHAWAJA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Order entered conditionally docketed this directed Ozelia Hicks, Jr. on June action. to At submit a 1, 2017, that the Court time, the Court statement under oath or penalty of perjury that: (A) (B) Identifies the nature of the action; States his belief that he is entitled to relief; (C) Avers that he is unable security therefor; and, (D) Includes a See 28 U.S.C. to prepay fees or give statement of the assets he possesses. § 1915(a)(1). The Court provided Hicks with an in fortna pauperis affidavit form for this purpose. Additionally, the Court directed Hicks to affirm his intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to that failure a within the thirty collection of to comply (3 0) days fees with of form. either the date The of of Court the warned above entry Hicks directives thereof would result in summary dismissal of the action. Dockets.Justia.com Hicks has not complied with the order of this Court. failed to return the to collection of fees for ^ forma pauperis affidavit and the consent form.^ As a forma pauperis status. statutory filing § 1914(a). prosecute. fee Such Hicks for he does not qualify Furthermore, he has not paid the the conduct result, instant demonstrates See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). action. a See willful 28 U.S.C. failure to Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Hicks. /s/ flt'f Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Date: Richmond, Varginia ^ Instead of following the Court's directives in the June 7, 2017 Memorandum Order, Hicks wrote a letter seeking recusal of the undersigned. (ECF No. 5.) Hicks claims that the Court exhibited "the appearance of bias, not impartial, racist remarks and comments" in a prior action. (Id. at 1.) Contrary to Hicks's belief, an unfavorable ruling fails to constitute a valid basis for a judicial bias claim. See United States v. Williamson, 213 F. App'x 235, 237-38 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). The Court harbors no bias against Hicks, and Hicks has not demonstrated any circumstance where the impartiality of the undersigned might be reasonably questioned. Accordingly, his letter request for recusal (ECF No. 5) will be denied.
]]>
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.
