BENNIE R. THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
NORMAN CARLSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

6th Cir. | 1983-05-02
No. 82-1531
Before LIVELY and ENGEL, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.
705 F.2d 868 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's case with prejudice.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, but later vacated when the court found he misrepresented his financial status. The court …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After examination of the record and briefs, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 84(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Plaintiff appeals the district court order which dismissed his civil rights case with prejudice. It appears from the record that on April 30, 1981, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted by the United States Magistrate and plaintiff’s complaint was filed in the district court.

Thereafter, on March 30,1982 the district court entered an order vacating the order which granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The order granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis was vacated because the district court determined plaintiff had intentionally misrepresented his financial status in the affidavit to support his request for pauper status. The district court order of March 30, 1982, demanded plaintiff pay the $60 filing fee, and forewarned that if the fee were not paid by April 29,1982, plaintiff’s case would be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s case was, in fact, dismissed with prejudice on June 2, 1982.

Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. This court notes that plaintiff has paid the filing fee for taking this appeal.

Having carefully examined the record and briefs, this court concludes the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s case with prejudice. Harris v. Cuyler, 664 F. 2d 388 (3d Cir.1981). For the reasons stated in the district court order of March 30, 1982, and the magistrate’s report and recommendation entered March 5,1982, it is Ordered that the district court order of dismissal be affirmed. Rule 9(d)(2), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw