BOYD-GORDON

BOYD-GORDON

Appellant:	RAVENIA BOYD-GORDON
Case Number:	1:2009cv02227
Filed:	November 23, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the District of Columbia
Office:	Washington, DC Office
County:	11001
Presiding Judge:	Richard J. Leon
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	11 U.S.C. § 8001 Bankruptcy Appeal
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 26, 2010	Filing 4 MEMORANDUM ORDER, Plaintiff-appellant filed this bankruptcy appeal on November 25, 2009. At the time of filing, plaintiff-appeallant was directed to Rule 8009 of the Bankruptcy Rules of Procedure, in particular the provision of that Rule which provid es in part that "[t]he appellant shall serve and file his brief within fourteen (14) days after entry of the appeal." (See Notice of Appeal 1 Ex. 1 at 1.) Unfortunately, plaintiff did not file any such brief. On January 11, 2010, the Cour t issued an Order which reminded plaintiff of her responsibilty under Rule 8009 and allowed her two additional weeks to file a brief. The Court's January 11 Order also informed plaintiff that failure to comply could cause her action to be dismis sed. In response, plaintiff submitted a one paragraph request to keep her appeal alive. She has failed to identify any issues for appeal, however, and in the absence of any brief, the Court is unable to consider her appeal further. Accordingly, due to plaintiff's insufficient response to the Court's Order, it is, this 25th day of February, 2010, hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 2/25/10. ( memorandum order.) Copy of memorandum order mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (kc )

Date Filed

Document Text

February 26, 2010

Filing 4 MEMORANDUM ORDER, Plaintiff-appellant filed this bankruptcy appeal on November 25, 2009. At the time of filing, plaintiff-appeallant was directed to Rule 8009 of the Bankruptcy Rules of Procedure, in particular the provision of that Rule which provid es in part that "[t]he appellant shall serve and file his brief within fourteen (14) days after entry of the appeal." (See Notice of Appeal 1 Ex. 1 at 1.) Unfortunately, plaintiff did not file any such brief. On January 11, 2010, the Cour t issued an Order which reminded plaintiff of her responsibilty under Rule 8009 and allowed her two additional weeks to file a brief. The Court's January 11 Order also informed plaintiff that failure to comply could cause her action to be dismis sed. In response, plaintiff submitted a one paragraph request to keep her appeal alive. She has failed to identify any issues for appeal, however, and in the absence of any brief, the Court is unable to consider her appeal further. Accordingly, due to plaintiff's insufficient response to the Court's Order, it is, this 25th day of February, 2010, hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 2/25/10. ( memorandum order.) Copy of memorandum order mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (kc )

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 District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BOYD-GORDON
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Appellant: RAVENIA BOYD-GORDON
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.

Why Is My Information Online?