Harpo v. Howard et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2). Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 2/16/17. (ddm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION WILHY HARPO, Plaintiff, v. 1:16-cv-3876-WSD BURNICE A. HOWARD, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff Wilhy Harpo (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint [1.1]. The Court found Plaintiff’s Complaint was a shotgun pleading, and, on February 3, 2017, the Court issued an order [5] (“February 3rd Order”) requiring Plaintiff to file, on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 15, 2017, an amended complaint clearly setting forth (1) each claim he seeks to assert; (2) the facts supporting each claim; and (3) the Defendant(s) against whom he asserts each claim. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with its February 3rd Order will result in dismissal of this action under Local Rule 41.3(A)(2), NDGa, and that no further opportunities to amend will be allowed. Plaintiff failed to file his amended complaint. Local Rule 41.3 authorizes the Court to dismiss a case for want of prosecution for failure to obey a lawful order of the Court. See LR 41.3(A)(2). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s February 3rd Order after being warned that failure to comply will result in dismissal of this action. Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2). For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2). SO ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2017. 2

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?