Featherson v. Rhone

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on April 29, 2011. (cap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
REGINALD FEATHERSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:10-cv-04065

OFFICER CURTIS RHONE,
Miller County Detention Center

DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff precedes pro se and in forma pauperis. This case is before me pursuant to the
consent of the parties (ECF No. 18).
By scheduling order (ECF No. 19) entered on November 30, 2010, this case was scheduled
for trial on May 4, 2011. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se, the Court
issues and serves all process.
Plaintiff was directed to submit a response to the scheduling order by April 4, 2011. Plaintiff
was to include in his response a list of all witnesses he would like the Court to issue subpoenas or
writs for. With respect to each proposed witness, Plaintiff was directed to provide the following
information: (a) Name; (b) Address; (c) Identification (for example, former cell mate); (d) Prisoner
Number (if witness is a prisoner and number is known); and (e) a Brief Description of the expected
testimony of the witness and the length of time of the expected testimony. Without his response, the
Court cannot issue trial subpoenas or writs.
On April 11, 2011, an order was entered (ECF No. 31) directing Plaintiff to complete an
attached questionnaire regarding the pending summary judgment motion. The response was to be
-1-

filed by April 25, 2011.
A show cause order (ECF No. 32) was entered on April 14, 2011. Plaintiff was given until
April 25, 2011, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to obey the
orders of the Court and his failure to prosecute the case. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the
Court’s original Scheduling Order or the show cause order (ECF No. 32). Further, he has not
responded to the summary judgment questionnaire (Doc. 31).
The Court’s orders have not been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not sought an
extension of time to submit his responses. Plaintiff has not contacted the Court. He has failed to
follow the orders of this Court and further failed to prosecute this case. For the reasons stated, this
case will be dismissed by separate order entered this same date. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
DATED this 29th day of April 2011.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-