DEGIFICO v. TIME WARNER et al, No. 2:2005cv00188 - Document 6 (D. Me. 2005)

Court Description: REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint filed by FRANK DEGIFICO. Objections to R&R due by 11/7/2005. By Judge MARGARET J. KRAVCHUK. (CWP, )

Download PDF

DEGIFICO v. TIME WARNER et al Doc. 6 Case 2:05-cv-00188-JAW Document 6 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE FRANK DEGIFICO, ) ) Plaintiff ) v. TIME WARNER, et al., Defendants ) ) Civil No. 05-188-P-W ) ) ) ) RECOMMENDED DECISION On October 3, 2005, this Court issued an Order denying plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis because it was not properly completed nor signed under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff was given until October 17, 2005, to submit a properly completed in forma pauperis application. To date the court has received no correspondence from plaintiff. Therefore, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety for plaintiff's failure to file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $250.00 filing fee. NOTICE A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1993) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within ten (10) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within ten (10) days after the filing of the objection. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court s order. Dated October 19, 2005 /s/ Margaret J. Kravchuk U.S. Magistrate Judge Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.