Lowe v. Buffkin et al
ORDER granting 20 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and dismissing case without prejudice. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 10/17/08. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION MARKETUS LADARRAL LOWE Reg. # 24274-009 v. MICKEY BUFFKIN ORDER Pending is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. No. 20). Plaintiff has not responded, and the time for doing so has passed. For the reasons set out below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) reads: Parties appearing pro se. 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. 1 On August 13, 2008, mail sent to Plaintiff by the Court was returned as undeliverable.2 Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's communication, and more than thirty days have passed.3 Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of October, 2008. 5:08CV00115-WRW DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF
/s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Doc. No. 16.
The Court sent another letter to Plaintiff, which was returned as undeliverable on September 30, 2008. Doc. No. 22. Apparently, Plaintiff did not notify the Court -- or Defense counsel -- of his current address.
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?