Grimes v. FCI Estill, SC et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Motions terminated as moot: 2 motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for a temporary restraining order. Signed by Honorable Margaret B. Seymour on 8/10/2017. (bgoo)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Jeffery J. Grimes, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) FCI Estill, SC; Warden Joyner; Anthony Carter, ) BA Unit Counselor/Unit Team, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) C/A No. 0:17-1338-MBS-PJG ORDER Plaintiff, Jeffery J. Grimes, a pro se litigant, filed this civil rights action against the defendants. By order issued June 12, 2017, Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to submit the documents necessary to bring the case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to provide the necessary information within a specific time period would subject the case to dismissal. Plaintiff did not respond to the Order and the time for response has lapsed. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and has failed to comply with an order of this Court. Therefore, the case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). In light of the dismissal of this matter, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for a temporary restraining order are terminated as moot. (ECF No. 2.) IT IS SO ORDERED. August 10, 2017 Charleston, South Carolina /s/ Margaret B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within the time period set forth under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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?