Moore v. Epstein
| Sharon D. Moore |
| Juda J. Epstein |
| 3:2019cv00258 |
| February 21, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Charles S Haight |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 27, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 RULING (attached). The Court has sua sponte determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the assertion by Plaintiff of her claims in a state court of competent jurisdiction. Her request for the Court to reconsider the Recommended Ruling, [Doc. #8 ], is denied as MOOT. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 03/27/2019. (Chen, C.) |
| Filing 8 Letter MOTION for Reconsideration re 7 Order on Recommended Ruling, Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Sharon D. Moore. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Reis, Julia) |
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC ORDER approving and adopting Judge Merriam's 6 Recommended Ruling ("RR") denying Plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, without prejudice to re-filing. Plaintiff has filed no objection to the RR. A district court reviews only for "clear error" those portions of a magistrate judge's recommended ruling as to which no specific objection was made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Bandhan v. Lab. Corp. Of Am., 234 F. Supp. 313, 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ("A district court evaluating a Magistrate's report may adopt those portions of the report to which no 'specific, written objection' is made, as long as those sections are not clearly erroneous" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b))). Having reviewing Judge Merriam's clear and careful opinion, I find no error, and therefore approve and adopt its reasoning in full.Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended application or paid the required filing fee by March 20, 2019, as directed by the RR, the Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 03/21/2019. (Chen, C.)
|
|
Filing 6
RECOMMENDED RULING. The Court recommends that plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed without payment of fees and costs, which motion includes a sworn statement relating to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Doc. #2 . The facts contained in that sworn statement, however, are not sufficient to establish that plaintiff "is unable to pay" the required $400 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff represents that she has no dependents, and was employed through September 15, 2018. See Doc. #2 at 3. Plaintiff further represents that she is currently receiving $230 per week in government benefits, and that she has no monthly expenses. See id. at 3-5. Although plaintiff represents that she has no property and only $250 in savings, see id. at 3-4, plaintiff's sworn statement documents $920 per month in discretionary income, more than twice the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court recommends that plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing. If plaintiff wishes to pursue her claims, she must pay the filing fee or file a renewed motion on or before March 20, 2019, or this case may be dismissed. This is a recommended ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Any objections to this recommended ruling must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of being served with this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object within fourteen (14) days will preclude appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a) and 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2; Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam); F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assoc., 66 F.3d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1995). It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 2/27/19. (Dowie, C)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam for ruling on #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 2/25/2019.(Freberg, B)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 2/21/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/22/2019. Discovery due by 8/23/2019. Dispositive Motions due by 9/27/2019. Signed by Clerk on 2/21/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Sharon D. Moore. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Juda J. Epstein, filed by Sharon D. Moore.(Fazekas, J.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Moore v. Epstein | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Sharon D. Moore | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Juda J. Epstein | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
