WATSON v. WILLIAMS, 4:11-cv-04022. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120321800
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2012
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has filed a motion to reopen this case (ECF No. 43). On August 18, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 25). Although he filed other documents, Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to compel. On October 26, 2011 (ECF No. 40), this Court granted the Defendants' motion to compel and directed Plaintiff to provide Defendants with discovery responses by November 10, 2011. On November 30, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has filed a motion to reopen this case (ECF No. 43). On August 18, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 25). Although he filed other documents, Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to compel. On October 26, 2011 (ECF No. 40), this Court granted the Defendants' motion to compel and directed Plaintiff to provide Defendants with discovery responses by November 10, 2011. On November 30, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss ..
More
ORDER
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to reopen this case (ECF No. 43). On August 18, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 25). Although he filed other documents, Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to compel. On October 26, 2011 (ECF No. 40), this Court granted the Defendants' motion to compel and directed Plaintiff to provide Defendants with discovery responses by November 10, 2011.
On November 30, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 41). In the motion, they advised the Court that they had not received any discovery responses from the Plaintiff. The motion to dismiss was granted (ECF No. 42) and the case dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to obey the order of the Court and his failure to prosecute the action.
In his motion to reopen (ECF No. 43), Plaintiff states he does not believe the Court followed "protocol" when his case was dismissed. The motion to reopen (ECF No. 43) is denied. Plaintiff did not provide discovery responses to the Defendants as he was directed to do so by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
