Paul v. Rigel et al

Filing 60

ORDER finding as moot 49 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 55 Motion to Stay Proceedings; granting 58 Motion to Dismiss Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/3/2017 (dtj)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY WAYNE PAUL, JR. PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-5-KS-MTP SHERIFF DANNY RIGEL, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss [58]. Plaintiff filed this action on January 8, 2016. On October 3, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [49]. On October 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay [55]. In the Motion to Stay, Plaintiff explains that his claims relate to the conditions of confinement at the Lamar County Jail and possible exposure to infectious diseases. Plaintiff further explains that he was recently tested for infectious diseases and the results were negative. Prior to receiving a ruling on his Motion to Stay, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal [58]. The Court construed this pleading as a motion to dismiss without prejudice and afforded Defendants an opportunity to respond to the motion. See Order [59].1 Defendants did not file a response. The Court finds that the Motion to Dismiss [58] should be granted. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss [58] is GRANTED; 2. All pending motions are denied as moot; 3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 4. A separate judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 will be filed herein. The Court informed Defendants that the Motion [58] would be considered without a response if one was not filed on or before December 23, 2016. 1 1 SO ORDERED this the 3rd day of January, 2017. s/Keith Starrett___________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?