Saunders v. Hicks et al

Filing 97

OPINION and ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 5/18/2017. (cbru, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION Danny Eugene Saunders, C/A. No. 5:15-4438-CMC Plaintiff v. Opinion and Order Officer Hicks, Defendant. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on October 30, 2015. ECF No. 1. On January 18, 2017, this court denied Defendant’s summary judgment motion on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Hicks in his individual capacity, and set a pre-trial conference. ECF No. 75. The pre-trial conference was held on February 21, 2017, with Plaintiff in attendance by video conference. See ECF No. 83. A jury selection and trial date were scheduled for April 12 based on Plaintiff’s advice of his impending release from the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) on March 31, 2017. Plaintiff was ordered by the court to notify the court and counsel for Defendant of his home address (where mail could reach him after his release) by March 15, 2017. However, Plaintiff failed to contact the court or provide any change in address to the court or to counsel for Defendant. Therefore, the jury selection was canceled and Plaintiff notified if he failed to contact the court by May 2, 2017, this matter would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has failed to contact the court in any way after the cancelled jury selection and previous order entered (ECF No. 94). It appears Plaintiff does not wish to pursue his claims in this matter. Therefore, this action is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina May 18, 2017 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?