Sparkman v. Thornell et al
JUDGMENT dismissing case with prejudice; granting 30 MOTION to Dismiss filed by R. Jones, Stovall, Charles Neff, Don Thornell; terminating motion 31 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment filed by R. Jones, Stovall, Charles Neff, Don Thornell. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 19, 2010. (dmc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WE ST E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS T E X A R K A N A DIVISION
JAM E S DANTHONY SPARKMAN v. C ivil No. 4:09-cv-04014
DON THORNELL, Interim Sheriff, Miller County, A rkansas; SHERIFF STOVALL, Sheriff, Miller C ounty, Arkansas; CHARLES NEFF, Miller C ounty Correctional Facility; and SGT. R. JONES, Miller County Correctional Facility JU DG M E NT
D E FE N D A N T S
O n November 19, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to compel answers to discovery requests (Doc. 26). On December 4, 2009, an order was entered (Doc. 29) granting the motion to compel. Plaintiff was given until 5:00 p.m. on December 23, 2009, to respond to the Defendants' interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Defendants were advised that if Plaintiff failed to respond to the discovery requests that the C ourt should be notified by the filing of a motion to dismiss. On January 5, 2010, Defendants filed a m otion to dismiss (Doc. 30). Defendants indicate they have not received the discovery responses or any other correspondence from the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court. The motion to dismiss (Doc. 30) is granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of February 2010.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant BARRY A. BRYANT 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?