Woodberry v. Stovall et al
Filing
43
JUDGMENT dismissing case based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order and her failure to prosecute this action. Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 6, 2012. (cap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
DEMETRA NEWTON WOODBERRY
v.
PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:10-cv-04141
SHERIFF RON STOVALL; CAPTAIN
STEVE HARTHINE, Miller County
Correctional Facility; and CAPTAIN
JACK HEINTZLEMAN, Miller County
Detention Center
DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT
This is a civil rights case filed pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis. The case is before me due to the consent of the parties (ECF No. 28).
By scheduling order (ECF No. 29) entered on June 20, 2011, this case was scheduled for a bench
trial on February 16, 2012. The scheduling order required Plaintiff to submit a list of witnesses that she
wanted the Court to issue subpoenas or writs for. This list was to be filed by no later than January 17,
2012.
On January 23, 2012, a show cause order (ECF no. 42) was issued. Plaintiff was given until
January 31, 2012, to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on her failure to obey an
order of the Court and her failure to prosecute.
To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the scheduling order or the show cause order. She has not
requested an extension of time to respond. The Court’s orders were sent to the address contained on the
docket sheet. This address was provided to the Court by Plaintiff. No mail has been returned as
undeliverable.
This case is therefore dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and her
failure to prosecute this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of February 2012.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. 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?