Martin v. Accounting et al, No. 3:2017cv00487 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/06/2017. Copy mailed to Martin.(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martin v. Accounting et al Doc. 3 J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT L E OCTI0 20I7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA • Richmond Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA MARSHALL MARTIN, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. ACCOUNTING, ^ 3:17CV4 87 al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Order entered on August 2, conditionally docketed this directed Marshall Martin action. to submit At a that 2017, the Court time, the statement under Court 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 (D) security therefor; and, Includes a statement of the assets he possesses. See 28 U.S.C. that he is unable to prepay fees § 1915(a)(1). or give The Court provided Martin with an in forma pauperis affidavit form for this purpose. Additionally, the Court directed Martin to affirm his intention to pay the full filing fee by signing and returning a consent to the collection of fees form. that a within failure thirty to (30) The Court warned Martin comply with either of days of the date of the above entry directives thereof would result in summary dismissal of the action. Dockets.Justia.com Martin has not complied Martin failed to return the ^ consent to collection of qualify for ^ with the order of this forma pauperis affidavit and the fees form. As forma pauperis status. a result, he § 1914(a). to prosecute. Such conduct demonstrates a See Fed. R. Civ. does not Furthermore, he has not paid the statutory filing fee for the instant action. U.S.C. Court. P. 41(b). willful See 28 failure Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Martin. /s/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Date: 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.
