# Ruppe v. Credit International Corporation

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 21, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11056068

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** May 21, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11056068

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KEVIN R. RUPPE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-00543-JSD
)
CREDIT INTERNATIONAL )
CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff
Kevin Ruppe commenced this civil action regarding alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act on April 18, 2025. ECF No. 1. However, Plaintiff neither paid
the filing fee nor sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 24, 2025, the Court
entered an order directing Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to
timely comply with the order would result in the dismissal of his case without further
notice. Plaintiff’s response was due by May 8, 2025.
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional
time to do so. Local Rule 2.01 authorizes the Clerk of Court to refuse to receive any
pleadings “until the applicable statutory fee is paid, except in cases accompanied by a
completed application to proceed in forma pauperis.” E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.01(B)(1). Plaintiff
had neither paid the filing fee nor submitted a motion to proceed without prepayment.
Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, he was cautioned that his case
would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and he was given ample time to comply.
The Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiffs failure to
comply with the Court’s April 24, 2025 Order and his failure to prosecute his case. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the
authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power
governed “by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to
achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801,
803 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's
failure to comply with any court order).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be
taken in good faith.
Dated this 21“ day of May, 2025.

Lippe 24h ff
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11056068. Public record. Not legal advice.