Gutierrez v. Helder et al

Filing 59

OPINION AND ORDER granting 50 & 56 Motions to Dismiss Case (CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE). Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on May 8, 2017. (tg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
PLAINTIFF

SANTIAGO GUTIERREZ

v.

Civil No. 16-CV-5184

SHERIFF HELDER; MAJOR
DENZER; SERGEANT MORSE; SERGEANT
FULLER; ARAMARK FOOD
SERVICE/COMMISSARY SUPPLY;
OFFICER MOTSINGER,
Springdale Police Department; CHIEF
OF POLICE, MIKE PETERS, Springdale,
Arkansas

DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights case filed by the Plaintiff under the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
§1983. Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis and prose. At the times at issue in this case,
Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center. Plaintiff is no longer
incarcerated.
On February 16, 2017 , an order (Doc. 46) was entered granting the motion to
compel filed by the City of Springdale Defendants. Plaintiff was given until March 6, 2017,
to provide the City of Springdale Defendants with his discovery responses.
On March 15, 2017 , an order (Doc. 49) was entered granting the motion to compel
filed by the Washington County Defendants . Plaintiff was given until March 31, 2017 , to
provide the Washington County Defendants with their discovery responses .
On March 15, 2017 , the City of Springdale Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
(Doc. 50). They stated that Plaintiff failed to provide them with discovery responses as
ordered by the Court (Doc. 46) .
A show cause order (Doc. 52) was entered on March 15, 2017 . Plaintiff was given
until March 31 , 2017 , to show cause why this action should not be dismissed based on his

failure to comply with the order of this Court. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond
to the show cause order would subject this case to summary dismissal. Plaintiff did not
respond to the show cause order. He did not file an extension of time to do so. No mail
has been returned to the Court as undeliverable.
On April 5, 2017 , the Washington County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc.
56) . They stated that Plaintiff failed to provide them with discovery responses as ordered
by the Court (Doc. 49). Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to dismiss. He did not
file an extension of time to do so. No mail has been returned to the Court as undeliverable.
For these reasons, the Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 50 & 56) are GRANTED and

the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute this action and failure
to obey the orders of the Court. Fed . R. ~ v . P. 41 (b) .

IT IS SO ORDERED on this $

day of May, 2017 .

-2-