Watkins v. Boyd et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 10/5/17: The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days from entry of the Memorandum Opinion and Order would result in the entry of an Order dismissing t he action for the reasons stated therein.The 30-day period has long since expired, and the record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Therefore, the Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this action. cc: Plaintiff(pro se), Defendants (DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16CV-P100-TBR
DAVID MAURICE WATKINS

PLAINTIFF

v.
BRADLEY L. BOYD et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff David Maurice Watkins filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered November 18, 2016 (DN 10), the Court conducted an
initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed the claims against
the named Defendants and allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint. Specifically, the Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Christian County Jail and Princeton Police
Department and the official-capacity claims against Defendants Boyd, Campbell, Howard, and
Fox pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The
Court further provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint to name
Defendants in their individual capacities. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to file an
amended complaint within 30 days from entry of the Memorandum Opinion and Order would
result in the entry of an Order dismissing the action for the reasons stated therein.
The 30-day period has long since expired, and the record reflects that Plaintiff has not
filed an amended complaint. Therefore, the Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this
action.
Date:

cc:

October 5, 2017

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4413.005