Edwards v. Arkansas Department of Correction

Filing 51

ORDER that pltf's case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely and properly comply with the Court's October 17, 2011 Order; denying as moot defts' 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 11/22/11. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION

DARRELL EDWARDS
V.

PLAINTIFF
1:10CV00078 SWW/JTR

ASHLEY BAGWELL, RN; and
AMANDA RICHARDSON, LPN,
Arkansas Department of Correction

DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Darrell Edwards, has commenced this pro se § 1983 action alleging
that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. See docket entries #2 and #16.
On October 17, 2011, the Court entered an Order giving Plaintiff thirty days to
file a: (1) freeworld Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; and (2) Response to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. See docket entry #49. Importantly, the
Court advised Plaintiff that the failure to timely and properly do so would result in the
dismissal of his case, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).1 Id.

1

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that: “It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel
to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her
address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. A party
appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and
telephone number. If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to
within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se
shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Emphasis
added.)

As of the date of this Order of Dismissal, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the
Court’s October 17, 2011 Order, and the time for doing so has expired.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), this case is DISMISSED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely and properly comply with the Court’s
October 17, 2011 Order.
2.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry #41) is

DISMISSED, AS MOOT.
3.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma

pauperis appeal from this Order of Dismissal and the accompanying Judgment would
not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 22nd day of November, 2011.

/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-