Lowe v. White et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell that Bbcause it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (SG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
WILLIE LOWE
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-P93-TBR

RANDY WHITE et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff 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 on April 21, 2015. That mailing was returned to the
Court by the U.S. Postal Service marked “Return to Sender; Refused; Unable to Forward.”
Plaintiff has not advised the Court of his new address, and notices from this Court in this action
cannot 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 the case by separate Order.
Date:

June 30, 2015

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.009