Ondrick v. Chatham Cnty.

Mark Ondrick II, proceeding pro se, has multiple lawsuits. As in his other cases, he moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) here. Doc. 2. The Court disbelieved his indigence claim, so in its last Order it required him to answer specific Court interrogatories aimed at uncovering the truth. Doc. 3 at 5-6 (interrogatories); see also id. 7 ("In his response to this Order he must reproduce each enumerated item above and legibly write (or type) his complete answer directly after it. Failure to comply with this directive will result in a recommendation of dismissal. Kareem v. Home Source Rental, 2014 WL 106632 at *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2014) (advising dismissal for non-compliance in similar IFP-information case), adopted, 2014 WL 2700632 (S.D. Ga. Jun 13, 2014)."). He has failed to comply. Accordingly, his case should be DISMISSED.

SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 2nd day of September, 2014

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA