Polk v. Pulaski County et al

Filing 46

ORDER, that the Plaintiff shall file, within thirty days, a Response to docket entry # 43 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eddie Seaton, James McKenzie. Plaintiff is advised that failure to timely do so will result in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 10/06/2011. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

ALLEN POLK
V.

PLAINTIFF
4:11CV00501 BRW/JTR

PULASKI COUNTY, et. al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Separate Defendants Seaton and McKenzie have filed a Motion to Dismiss and
a Supporting Brief. See docket entries #43 and #44. The Court will give Plaintiff
thirty days to file a Response to that Motion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff shall file, within thirty days of the entry of this Order, a

Response to Defendant Seaton’s and McKenzie’ Motion to Dismiss (docket entry
#43).
2.

Plaintiff is advised that his failure to timely do so will result in the

dismissal of this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).1

1

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides, in pertinent part that: “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.”

Dated this 6th day of October, 2011.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-