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, )
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?