Davis v. Hobbs
Filing
50
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL, dismissing the Doe Defendants from this action without prejudice, due to lack of service. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 9/19/11. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
GREGORY DAVIS
ADC #97816
V.
PLAINTIFF
5:10CV00271 SWW/JTR
DOES, Five Unknown Officers
at the Tucker Maximum Security Unit; and
JOHN GLASSCOCK, Lieutenant,
Arkansas Department of Correction
DEFENDANTS
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Gregory Davis, is a prisoner in the East Arkansas Regional Unit. On
August 31, 2010, he filed a pro se § 1983 Complaint alleging that Defendant John
Glasscock and five John Doe Defendants used excessive force against him while he
was a prisoner in the Maximum Security Unit. See docket entry #2.
On November 22, 2010, the Court entered an Order giving Plaintiff 120 days
to file a Motion for Service providing the names of and addresses for the John Doe
Defendants. See docket entry #10. Importantly, the Court advised Plaintiff that if he
failed to timely and properly do so, the John Doe Defendants would be dismissed,
without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Id.
Thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension, until September 8, 2011,
to file his Motion for Service. See docket entry #47.
As of the date of this Order of Partial Dismissal, Plaintiff has failed to file his
Motion for Service, and the time for doing so has expired.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), the five John Doe Defendants are
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, due to a lack of service.
2.
The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in
forma pauperis appeal from this Order of Partial Dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 19th day of September, 2011.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
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?