Going v. Cupp, 2:12-cv-02035. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180530a07
Visitors: 1
Filed: May 29, 2018
Latest Update: May 29, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER P.K. HOLMES, III , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff filed this civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He proceeds in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is represented by counsel. On March 30, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 93). Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion within fourteen days as required by Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Rather than dismiss the case at this point, an Order (ECF No
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER P.K. HOLMES, III , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff filed this civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He proceeds in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is represented by counsel. On March 30, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 93). Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion within fourteen days as required by Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Rather than dismiss the case at this point, an Order (ECF No...
More
OPINION AND ORDER
P.K. HOLMES, III, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff filed this civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. He proceeds in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is represented by counsel.
On March 30, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 93). Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion within fourteen days as required by Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Rather than dismiss the case at this point, an Order (ECF No. 98) was entered on April 25, 2018, directing the Plaintiff to file a response to the Summary Judgment Motion by May 16, 2018. Plaintiff was advised that failure to file the response would subject the case to summary dismissal.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response. The Order (ECF No. 98) has not been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not sought an extension of time to file his response. Plaintiff has had nearly two months to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment and has not done so.
Therefore, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on the Plaintiff's failure to obey an Order of the Court and his failure prosecute this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
