Smallwood v. UMass Correctional Health Care et al

Filing 4

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No filing fee shall be assessed.(PSSA, 3)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS WILLIAM SMALLWOOD, Plaintiff, v. UMASS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 14-12712-DPW FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL April 8, 2015 William Smallwood was a named plaintiff in Stote v. UMass Correctional Health Care, C.A. No. 13-10267-NMG, a civil rights action filed by MCI Norfolk inmate John E. Stote in which he and over one hundred other prisoners claimed that medical care at MCI Norfolk was inadequate. In an order dated June 25, 2014, the Court ordered that the claims of each plaintiff be severed and that a separate case be opened up for each individual plaintiff. See id. (D. 20). The order directed each plaintiff who wanted to prosecute his own claims to pay the $400 filing fee or file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs within sixty days and that the failure to pay the fee or seek leave to proceed without payment of the fee may result in dismissal of the individual action without prejudice. The Clerk mailed a copy of Judge Gorton’s order and the form Application to Smallwood in June 2014. The sixty-day period has expired without any response from Smallwood. The documents the Clerk mailed to him were not returned as undeliverable and a public website (vinelink.com) indicates that he is still confined at MCI Norfolk. I therefore assume that the plaintiff received the documents previously sent to him and has chosen not to prosecute this action. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. filing fee shall be assessed. This order is a final order of dismissal. SO ORDERED. /s/ Douglas P. Woodlock DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 No

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?