Turner v. Valor Merchant Services Company
- William Alsup
- 3:23-cv-03381
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Turner v. Valor Merchant Services: Judge Alsup dismissed the action because Turner did not pay the filing fee, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The dismissal ended Terrance Turner’s action against Valor Merchant Services Company because Turner did not pay the filing fee.
What happened
In Turner v. Valor Merchant Services Company, Terrance Turner did not pay the required filing fee. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case because of that failure.
No objection to the recommendation was received. The order also corrected the recommendation’s statement that Turner had not consented to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction; Turner had consented, but the defendant had not, so reassignment was proper.
Judge William Alsup adopted the recommendation in full, with that correction, and dismissed the action. The order described Turner’s failure to pay the filing fee as a failure to prosecute the case.
The detailed version
- Turner v. Valor Merchant Services Company · No. 3:23-cv-03381
- William Alsup
- Oct. 18, 2023
Background Terrance Turner brought this action against Valor Merchant Services Company. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued a report and recommendation that the action be dismissed because Turner had not paid the filing fee. The report characterized this as a failure to prosecute, meaning a failure to move the case forward.
Jurisdiction correction The district court noted one inaccurate statement in the report: Turner had consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, contrary to the report’s statement. Because Valor Merchant Services Company had not consented, the reassignment of the action was proper.
Ruling Judge William Alsup adopted the report and recommendation in full, with the correction concerning Turner’s consent. The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in the report, including Turner’s failure to pay the filing fee. The opinion text provided does not include the report’s additional reasoning.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.