Title: Triplett v. Dr. Rogers, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 725, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 1, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PRENTICE L. TRIPLETT,   
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DR. ROGERS, et al.,  
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 725, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 09C-10-129 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 16, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 1, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 1st day of June 2010, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the 
record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
This is an appeal from the Superior Court’s November 20, 2009 order 
dismissing the complaint of plaintiff-appellant Prentice L. Triplett for failure to 
prosecute.  The Superior Court based its decision on what it believed was Triplett’s 
failure to pay the required filing fee of $2.04 on or before November 9, 2009.1  
Because Triplett’s appeal is interlocutory, it must be dismissed. 
                                                 
1 Triplett, a prison inmate, was advised by the Superior Court on October 20, 2009 that he would 
have to pay 20% of the average daily balance in his inmate account for the past six months in 
order for his case to proceed. 
 
2 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Triplett complied with the Superior Court’s 
order, but, due to a misunderstanding between Triplett and the Prothonotary’s 
Office, the filing fee was applied to Triplett’s criminal fines rather than to the filing 
fee in his civil case.  On December 9, 2009, Triplett filed a motion for 
reconsideration or reargument of the Superior Court’s November 20, 2009 order.  
Prior to the Superior Court’s disposition of the motion, Triplett filed the instant 
appeal. 
 
(3) 
The test for whether an order is final and, therefore, ripe for appellate 
review is whether the trial court has clearly declared its intention that its order be 
its “final act” in a case.2  If there is no “finality . . . of the essential questions 
involved,” then the matter is interlocutory and not ripe for appeal.3  At the time the 
instant appeal was filed, Triplett’s motion for reconsideration was still pending.  
As such, the appeal is interlocutory and not ripe for review by this Court.   
 
(4) 
Since Triplett has not complied with the requirements for 
interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s November 20, 2009 order,4 his appeal 
must be dismissed.     
 
                                                 
2 J.L. Kislak Mortgage Corp. of Delaware v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 
(Del. 1973). 
3 Showell Poultry, Inc. v. Delmarva Poultry Corp., 146 A.2d 794, 796 (Del. 1958). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 42. 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal is 
DISMISSED pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 29(b) and 42.  In the event that 
Triplett files an appeal from a final judgment in this case, the filing fee in that 
appeal is waived. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice