Ward v. Cannon et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Henry M. Herlong, Jr., on 1/24/2017. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lucas Ward, #129061,
Sheriff Al Cannon; J. Phillips; and D.
C/A No. 1:16-3732-HMH
Lucas Ward (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. On December 6, 2016, the court ordered
Plaintiff to fully complete Section V, Relief, of the complaint, and to provide the service
documents necessary to advance his case. [ECF No. 7]. Plaintiff was warned that the
failure to provide the necessary information within a specific time period would subject the
case to dismissal. Id. Plaintiff partially responded to the court’s order, however Plaintiff
failed to properly complete his service documents. The court issued a second order on
December 21, 2016, asking Plaintiff to provide the service documents necessary to
advance his case. [ECF No. 13]. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to provide the
necessary information within a specific time period would subject the case to dismissal. Id.
The time for response expired on January 14, 2017, and Plaintiff did not file a response. As
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and has failed to comply with an order of this
Court, 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 24, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
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?