Miller v. Boyd et al
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting 28 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 28 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 26 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 11/19/2012. cc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-P151
RONALD BENJAMIN MILLER
PLAINTIFF
v.
BRAD BOYD, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and alternative
Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 26). Plaintiff has failed to file a response, and has also
failed to comply with this Court’s Order to pay the remaining balance of his filing fee. Defendant
has renewed his Motion to Dismiss and alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 28).
These matters are now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (DN 26 & 28) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Ronald Benjamin Miller filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C § 1983 against
a number of Christian County Jail officials in their individual and official capacities. After
conducting an initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A and
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims
except for his deliberate indifference claim against Brad Boyd in his official capacity. The Court
further gave leave for Plaintiff to amend his claim alleging a denial of medical treatment to
provide more specific details and name as Defendants those allegedly responsible for the denial.
Plaintiff filed motions requesting appointment of counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis,
which this Court denied on July 16, 2012 (DN 24). In that Order, the Court also allowed Plaintiff
an additional 30 days in which to respond to Defendant’s May 30 discovery requests and an
extension until August 31, 2012, to amend his denial of medical treatment claim. Both deadlines
have passed without response from the Plaintiff. Based on Plaintiff’s release from incarceration,
the Court in a separate order on July 16, 2012, (DN 25) also directed Plaintiff to pay the balance
of the $350.00 filing fee or file a non-prisoner application to proceed without prepayment of
fees. Plaintiff has failed to adhere to this Court’s Order and has further failed to file his Pretrial
Memorandum by the ordered deadline of October 17, 2012.
Based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the requisite filing fee, Defendant has moved to
dismiss this action. Alternatively, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s May 30,
2012, discovery requests, Defendant asks that the Requests for Admissions be deemed admitted
and summary judgment be granted based on those admissions.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s action should be dismissed. In its July 16 Order, the Court
warned Plaintiff that failure to pay the required filing fee would result in dismissal of his case.
Despite this warning, four months have passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion and
Renewed Motion to Dismiss (DN 26 & 28) are GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss, Defendant’s alternative Motion for Summary Judgment is MOOT.
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
November 19, 2012
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?