Racy et al v. Lewis et al

Filing 40

ORDER re 35 Initial Scheduling Order. The Clerk is directed to send this Order to Plaintiff's last-known address, even though the Initial Scheduling Order was returned to sender. Plaintiff shall notify this Court of her current address within 30 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 12/21/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION DOTTIE DESHAEE RACY, ADC #708533, et al. v. PLAINTIFFS 5:11-cv-00155-DPM-JTK DEPUTY LEWIS, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER On December 19, 2011, a copy of the December 8, 2011 Scheduling Order which was mailed to Plaintiff Racy at her last-known address, was returned to sender (Doc. No. 39). Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), a pro se plaintiff must promptly notify the Clerk of the Court and other parties of any change in his address, and must monitor the progress of the case and prosecute it diligently. Furthermore, the Local Rule provides for the dismissal without prejudice of any action in which communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within thirty days. Although Plaintiff has apparently changed her address, this Order will be sent to her lastknown address. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff Dottie Deshaee Racy shall notify this Court of her current address and her intent to continue prosecution with this action, pro se, within thirty days of the date of this Order. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in Plaintiff Racy’s dismissal from this case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2011. ____________________________________ JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED 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?