Moore v. Midland County, 87-1926

• Decision Date: 24 May 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-1926,87-1926
• Citation: 848 F.2d 192
• Parties: Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Mahlen H. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MIDLAND, James R. McNutt, Lyle Schieber, Charles Londo, Ann M. Dever, Anne Schilling, Rose Marie McQuaid, Betty Fillmore, Scott MacDonald, Garth Beaver, Polland Weaver, Cletus Supinger, Peter Bastuk, Bart Dexter, Ralph Hobbs, Bruce Brooks, Donald Thortun, Richard Plude, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 192

848 F.2d 192

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Mahlen H. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MIDLAND, James R. McNutt, Lyle Schieber, Charles Londo, Ann M. Dever, Anne Schilling, Rose Marie McQuaid Betty Fillmore, Scott MacDonald, Garth Beaver, Polland Weaver, Cletus Supinger, Peter Bastuk, Bart Dexter, Ralph Hobbs, Bruce Brooks, Donald Thortun, Richard Plude Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-1926.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 24, 1988.

Before KEITH and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE CLIFTON EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Appellant seeks review of the order of the district court filed June 19, 1987 and entered June 26, 1987.

A review of the record indicates that plaintiffs Moore and Davidson filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 prisoner civil rights complaint on May 30, 1986, but that only plaintiff Davidson submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The record evinces apparent confusion regarding which of the two plaintiffs filed and received leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, after several proceedings Magistrate Goldman concluded in his report and recommendation entered March 19, 1987, that service of process should issue on behalf of plaintiff Davidson, who filed the in forma pauperis certificate. The magistrate further concluded that plaintiff Moore had failed to either pay the filing fee or request in forma pauperis status, after noting that Moore attempted to pay the sixty dollars filing fee on September 18, 1986, with a post-dated check. The magistrate recommended that Moore be given ten days in which to file for in forma pauperis status, pay the filing fee or suffer dismissal. The magistrate's findings and conclusions were approved by the district court in its order filed June 19 and entered June 26, 1987. The district court's order of June 26, 1987 ordered that service of process upon the named defendants should issue on behalf of plaintiff Davidson only.

On June 19, 1987, plaintiff Davidson filed with the court a request to withdraw as a plaintiff. The record is devoid of an entry granting Davidson's request.

A further review of the record reveals a copy of a document,...