Antley v. Darden et al
MEMORANDUM RULING. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/20/2017. (crt,Crawford, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICKEY WAYNE ANTLEY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3307
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES
DEPUTY SLADE DARDEN, ET AL.
MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
On August 23, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Order [Doc. No. 59] continuing trial
after Plaintiff Mickey Wayne Antley (“Antley”), who is acting pro se, failed to appear at an August
9, 2017 pre-trial conference conducted by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes. Antley also failed to
file a proposed joint pretrial order with Defendants. As of the date of the Memorandum Order, the
Court further noted that Antley had failed to comply with Magistrate Judge Hayes’ Minutes [Doc.
No. 58] of the pre-trial conference, requiring him “to provide the court and his opposing counsel
with a telephone number where he can be reached, is to provide copies of his exhibits to his opposing
counsel, and is to file copies of all of his exhibits in the record of these proceedings within 10 days
of the date of this order.” Id. Finally, the Court warned Antley that he “must comply with
Magistrate Judge Hayes’ Minutes by providing and/or filing the identified information and items no
later than September 6, 2017[,]” or the Court would “DISMISS HIS CASE FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE.” [Doc. No. 59].
Despite the Court’s warning and the extension of time for compliance with Magistrate Judge
Hayes’ Minutes, Antley has failed to provide the required information, to file any pleading, or take
any other action indicating his intent to proceed with his lawsuit. Under the circumstances, and
given the clear notice given to him, the Court finds that Antley’s lawsuit should be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. Antley may move for reinstatement within thirty
(30) days of the date of this Ruling for good cause shown.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 20th day of September, 2017.
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?