Case Title: Locklear v. Remington

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
AUTREY J. LOCKLEAR,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM REMINGTON, Director
of Revenue for the
State of Delaware,
Defendant Below-
Appellee.
§
§  No. 88, 2002
§
§
§  Court Below: Court of Chancery
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 19047
§
§
§
§
§
Submitted:  April 3, 2002
Decided:  April 24, 2002
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 24th day of April 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1)  On March 19, 2002, a Notice to Show Cause was issued to Autrey
Locklear directing him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed,
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), for his failure to diligently prosecute the
appeal by failing to pay the Court of Chancery and Supreme Court filing fees.
Locklear responded to the Notice to Show Cause on April 3, 2002. 
(2)  Locklear’s response attempts to reargue the Court’s order, dated
March 5, 2002, denying Locklear’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  The
-2-
Court’s single-Justice order denying Locklear’s in forma pauperis motion is not
subject to reargument. 
(3)
Locklear filed the appeal in this Court.  It therefore is his duty to
diligently prosecute the appeal, including payment of the filing fees. In light of
Locklear’s failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not paying the filing
fees, the dismissal of this action is appropriate pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
29(b).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice