Pruitt v. Craighead County Detention Center et al
ORDER granting 27 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Complaint & Amended Complaint are DISMISSED without PREJUDICE under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 9/14/09. (jct)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION JAMES JERMAINE PRUITT V. C A S E NO.: 3:09CV00046 BD PLAINTIFF
C R A I G H E A D COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al. ORDER
P e n d in g is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (docket entry #27). Plaintiff has not re s p o n d e d . For the following reasons, Defendants' motion (#27) is GRANTED, and P la in tif f 's Complaint (#1) and Amended Complaint (#5) are DISMISSED WITHOUT P R E JU D IC E . O n April 10, 2009, Plaintiff James Jermaine Pruitt filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 a c tio n (#1) pro se. On June 10, 2009, this Court entered a Scheduling Order, which was re tu rn e d as undeliverable (#23). On July 10, 2009, this Court ordered Plaintiff to provide n o tic e of his new address within 30 days of the entry of the Order (#24). The Order (#24) n o tif ie d Plaintiff of his responsibilities under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and cautioned him that f a ilu re to comply with the Order could result in dismissal of his complaint. Plaintiff has f a ile d to respond to the Court's Order. D e f e n d a n ts' Motion to Dismiss requests dismissal based on Plaintiff's failure to c o m p ly with the Court's Order. Plaintiff failed to provide notice of his new address and f a ile d to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and the time to do so has passed.
Accordingly, Defendants' motion (#27) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (#1) a n d Amended Complaint (#5) are DISMISSED without PREJUDICE under Local Rule 5 .5 ( c ) ( 2 ). IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of September, 2009.
_____________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?