Roark v. Parnell et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 2/23/17: It appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in the prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff(pro se) (DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CECIL ROARK, II
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-P181-GNS

NICK PARNELL 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(e) (“All pro se
litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential address, and, if different, mailing
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 January 5, 2017. 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 the
prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order.
Date:

February 23, 2017

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4416.009

Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court