Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mumit v. Lay, 2:16-CV-169-BRW-BD. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20171228a22 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2017
Summary: RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION BETH DEERE , Magistrate Judge . I. Procedure for Filing Objections This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written objections to this Recommendation. If you file objections, they must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for your objection. Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. If
More

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections

This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written objections to this Recommendation. If you file objections, they must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for your objection. Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation.

If no objections are filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

II. Discussion

Ahmeen Mumit, a former Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC") inmate, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants Lay, Dickerson, and Reed violated his first amendment rights by confiscating his photographs without a legitimate penological purpose. (Docket entry #2) Mr. Mumit sued the Defendants in both their individual and official capacities and requested both monetary and injunctive relief. Defendant Dickerson is the only remaining Defendant. (#24)

On October 2, 2017, Defendant Dickerson moved for an order compelling Mr. Mumit to respond to her discovery requests propounded on August 14, 2017. (#30) The Court granted the motion and ordered Mr. Mumit to file his discovery responses with the Court by November 6, 2017. (#32) The Court specifically cautioned Mr. Mumit that his claims could be dismissed, without prejudice, if he failed to comply with the court's October 10, 2017 order. Local Rule 5.5. To date, Mr. Mumit has not filed his discovery responses with the Court and the time for doing so has passed.

III. Conclusion

The Court recommends that Mr. Mumit's claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to comply with the Court's October 10, 2017 order and his failure to prosecute this lawsuit.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer