Reliford v. Ross et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on April 29, 2016. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
MELVIN TODD RELIFORD
v.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 4:14-cv-4099

LT. HEATH ROSS

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Plaintiff submitted this pro se action for filing on June 11, 2014. ECF No. 1. The parties
consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned for final disposition of this case. ECF No. 11.
On February 4, 2016, the Court set this matter for a Motion for Summary Judgment
hearing for Thursday, April 21, 2016 - 1:00 p.m. in Fort Smith, Arkansas. ECF No. 19. On
February 25, 2016, the Court issued an Order advising the Plaintiff that he would be responsible
for his own transportation to the hearing on April 21, 2016. ECF No. 20. The Court also
directed the Plaintiff to inform the Court no later than March 10, 2016 of his intent to appear at
the hearing on April 21, 2016. Id. On March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed his Response to the
Court’s Order informing the Court that he had transportation to appear at the April 21, 2016
hearing. ECF No. 21.
On April 21, 2016, the Defendant’s counsel appeared via video conferencing for the
Motion for Summary Judgment hearing. The Plaintiff did not appear at 1:00 p.m. as ordered.
The court left the proceedings open until 1:30 PM and the Plaintiff still did not appear. Plaintiff
did not communicate with the Court prior to the hearing since the filing of his March 9, 2016
Response to the Court’s Order, nor has the Plaintiff communicated with the court since the
hearing date to explain his absence.

Page 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment and, particularly,
Plaintiff’s failure to even attempt to controvert the facts stated in Defendants’ Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts and failure to appear at the Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing
on April 21, 2016 require that those facts be deemed admitted pursuant to Local District Court
Rule 56.1.
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated in open court the Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of April, 2016.

/s/ James R. Marschewski
HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2