Howard v. Gordon Law Offices, P.S.C. et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs claims by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants (SG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
MICHAEL DALE HOWARD
v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14CV-P86-JHM

GORDON LAW OFFICES, P.S.C. et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Michael Dale Howard initiated this civil action. Upon filing the instant action, he
assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court advised of his current address and to actively
litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(d) (“All pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of
address to the clerk and to the opposing party or the opposing party’s counsel. Failure to notify the
Clerk of an address change may result in the dismissal of the litigant’s case or other appropriate
sanctions.”).
The Court sent an Order to Plaintiff in October 2014. That mailing was returned marked
“Return to Sender” and “Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff has not advised the Court of a change of
address, and neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants in this action can be served
on Plaintiff. In such situations, courts have an inherent power “acting on their own initiative, to
clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of
the parties seeking relief.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Because it appears
to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will
dismiss Plaintiff’s claims by separate Order.
Date:

cc:

December 18, 2014

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4414.009