Summary
In Dobbins v. Thomas, 26 App. D.C. 157, it was ruled that a contract made by a married woman for the exchange of real estate and for the purchase of personal property must, under the Code, be deemed to have been made with reference to her separate estate, and that the provisions of section 1177 of the Code, that the husband shall not be relieved from liability for necessaries contracted for by his wife, do not operate to relieve the wife from liability for necessaries contracted for independently of her husband.
Summary of this case from Saks v. HuddlestonOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-478-MEF [WO]
07-16-2014
GLENN DUBUJAK DOBBINS, #263 340, Plaintiff, v. KIM TOBIAS THOMAS, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from alleged systemic deficiencies at the Ventress Correctional Facility. However, upon initiation of this case, Plaintiff did not file the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee applicable when a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, nor did he submit an original affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by the required documentation from the inmate account clerk. Thus, the court did not have the information necessary to determine whether Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and, therefore, entered an order requiring he provide the court with this information on or before June 26, 2014. Order of June 6, 2014 - Doc. No. 3 at 1-2. The court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with this order would result in a recommendation this case be dismissed. Id. at 2.
As of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned order. The court, therefore, concludes this case is due to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to file the requisite fees or provide the court with financial information in compliance with the order of this court.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before July 30, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar a party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).
DONE, this 16th day of July 2014.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker
SUSAN RUSS WALKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE