Case Title: Smith v. Connections CSP, Inc. & Adescemolu

Citation: 

Docket Number: 315, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-08-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FREDERICK W. SMITH, JR., 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CONNECTIONS CSP, INC. and 
KATHERINE ADESCEMOLU, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 315, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N16C-03-279 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 30, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 1, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 1st day of August 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 20, 2016, the appellant, Frederick W. Smith, Jr., filed a 
notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated and filed on June 7, 2015, that 
denied his untimely motion for reargument.  Smith sought reargument of two 
Superior Court orders, dated April 5, 2016 and filed on May 9, 2016, that denied 
Smith’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and required Smith to file an 
affidavit  of merit under 18 Del. C. § 6853.  The Prothonotary informed Smith that 
his complaint would be dismissed unless he paid the $200 filing fee and an 
affidavit of merit or motion to extend time to file the affidavit by May 27, 2016.   
 
2 
 
(2) 
On June 28, 2016, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to show 
cause directing Smith to show why this appeal should not be dismissed for his 
failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in filing an appeal from an 
interlocutory order.  In his response to the notice to show cause, Smith does not 
address his failure to comply with Rule 42. 
(3) 
“The denial of a petition to proceed in forma pauperis is an 
interlocutory order for which appellate review is available only upon compliance 
with Supreme Court Rule 42.”1  Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, 
this Court is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.2  An order is 
deemed final and appealable if the trial court has declared its intention that the 
order be the court’s final act in the case.3  The docket of the Superior Court 
proceedings does not reflect entry of an order dismissing Smith’s complaint.  
Smith’s failure to comply with Rule 42 requires the dismissal of this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                               
 
1 Abdul-Akbar v. Washington-Hall, 649 A.2d 808, 809 (Del. 1994). 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3 J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).