Haywood v. Helder et al
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing Complaint without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the order of the Court, and his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on March 6, 2018. (rg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TELVONDRIC MARKESE HAYWOOD
Civil No. 5:17-cv-05075
SHERIFF TIM HELDER; SERGEANT SETH
PARTAIN; CORPORAL GARY LUNDSFORD;
and DEPUTY REGGIE WASHINGTON
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se
and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center.
On February 5, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15). On the
following day, an Order (ECF No. 18) was entered directing Plaintiff to file a response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment by February 27, 2018. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond to the Order would
subject the case to dismissal, without prejudice.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response. He has not requested an extension of time to file his response.
No mail has been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order (ECF No. 18).
Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas requires parties
appearing pro se to monitor the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently.
IT IS CONSIDERED, ORDERED, and ADJUDGED that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the order of the Court, and his
failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of March 2018.
P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT 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?