Williams v. Lockhart et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Reconsideration re 23 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 2/6/09. (dac)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HELENA DIVISION THELMA WILLIAMS, JR. ADC #93197 V. NO: 2:08CV00182 BSM/HDY DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff filed this complaint on October 8, 2009, and service was ordered. Because the Arkansas Department of Correction has multiple employees named Williams, service on Defendant Sgt. Williams was unsuccessful (docket entry #10), and Plaintiff was directed to provide a first name for Williams, so that service could be perfected (docket entry #11). On December 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a response indicating that he did not know Williams's first name (docket entry #18). Accordingly, on January 20, 2009, Plaintiff's claims against Williams were dismissed without prejudice (docket entry #23). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), Plaintiff has now filed a motion for relief from that order (docket entry #27), in which he also seeks a default judgment against Williams, and an order directing the enforcement of a specific act required by a judgment. Plaintiff's motion provides no grounds to indicate that the order dismissing his claims against Williams was inappropriate, nor has he provided a first name for Williams. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for relief from the order (docket entry #27) is DENIED. To the extent that Plaintiff's motion seeks a default judgment against Williams, or the enforcement of a judgment, it is DENIED as well, as there is no judgment against Williams to enforce, and Williams is not in default, PL A I N T I F F DOUGLAS LOCKHART et al. and has in fact never been served with the summons and complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2009. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?