LOVE v. STATE

Case No. 2:17-cv-01317-RFB-CWH.

WILSON EARL LOVE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, Defendant.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional - State Statute
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Wilson Earl Love, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff submitted an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and a Complaint on May 9, 2017. On May 15, 2017, this Court denied (ECF No. 5) Plaintiff's application, and gave Plaintiff a deadline to either pay the filing fee or file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. On June 9, 2017, the Court ordered (ECF No. 7) an extension to Plaintiff's deadline until July 8, 2017.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action in federal district court. The court may authorize the commencement of an action "without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefore." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff was notified that failure to comply with the Court's Order to pay the filing fee or submit a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis would result in the Court recommending dismissal of the action.

More than thirty days have elapsed since the Court's Order and Plaintiff has not submitted the filing fee or a renewed application.

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee within 30 days of the Court's Order.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's pending motion to join (ECF No. 9) be denied as moot.

NOTICE

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases