Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Crook v. Thrice, 4:17-CV-327-JM-BD. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20180418780 Visitors: 24
Filed: Mar. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2018
Summary: RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION BETH DEERE , Magistrate Judge . I. Procedures for Filing Objections This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge James M. Moody Jr. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. If no objections are fil
More

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedures for Filing Objections

This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge James M. Moody Jr. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation.

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

II. Background

Stephen Arnold Crook, an Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC") inmate, filed this lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His claims arise from the alleged failure of officials at the Wrightsville Unit to provide him prescription medication. (Docket entry #2)

All Defendants have now moved to dismiss Mr. Crook's claims against them based on his failure to respond to their discovery requests and failure to appear for his deposition. (#34, #36)

On February 28, 2018, the Court gave Mr. Crook thirty days to explain why he failed to appear at his deposition and to provide responses to the outstanding discovery requests. (#38) The Court specifically cautioned Mr. Crook that his claims could be dismissed if he failed to respond to the Court's order. Local Rule 5.5.

As of this date, Mr. Crook has not responded to the Defendants' motions to dismiss; nor has he responded to the Court's February 28, 2018 order.

III. Conclusion

The Court recommends that the Defendants' motions to dismiss (#34, #36) be GRANTED, and that Mr. Crook's claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on 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