Kelly v. Hudspeth et al

Filing 30

ORDER granting 28 defts' Motion to Dismiss and dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 5/17/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BATESVILLE DIVISION

STEPHEN GLENN KELLY

V.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 1:10CV00031 JMM

RUBEN BALENTINE AND
MARK RODENBURY

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply. For
the reasons stated below, the motion is granted and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without
prejudice (#28).
On March 24, 2011, The Court directed Plaintiff to return to Defendants by April 4, 2011, a
signed medical release form and Defendants’s propounded Interrogatories and Request for
Production, on, or before, April 24, 2011. Plaintiff failed to do so.
By this same order, Plaintiff was made aware that if any communication from the Court to a
pro se plaintiff was not responded to within thirty (30) days, the case could be dismissed without
prejudice.
Defendants now seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) which
states that a defendant may move for dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims based upon that plaintiff’s
failure to prosecute or comply with the rules or any order of the court.

1

Defendants’ discovery request were filed in August of 2010 resulting in Plaintiff having
over eight months to respond to such requests. Plaintiff has also failed to respond to the Court’s
Order within the required 30 day period.
Based upon Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or respond to the Court’s Order of March 24,
2011, his complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17

day of

May , 2010.

James M. Moody
United States District Judge

2