Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

MANNING v. DALSIS, 5:11-cv-00285-BSM-JTK. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20120222924 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge. On February 16, 2012, a copy of the February 9, 2012 Order which was mailed to Plaintiff at his last-known address, was returned to sender (Doc. No. 32). Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), a pro se plaintiff must promptly notify the Clerk of the Court and other parties of any change in his address, and must monitor the progress of the case and prosecute it diligently. Furthermore, the Local Rule provides for the dismissal without prejudice of any a
More

ORDER

JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.

On February 16, 2012, a copy of the February 9, 2012 Order which was mailed to Plaintiff at his last-known address, was returned to sender (Doc. No. 32).

Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), a pro se plaintiff must promptly notify the Clerk of the Court and other parties of any change in his address, and must monitor the progress of the case and prosecute it diligently. Furthermore, the Local Rule provides for the dismissal without prejudice of any action in which communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within thirty days. Although Plaintiff has apparently changed his address, this Order will be sent to his last-known address. Accordingly,

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall notify this Court of his current address and his intent to continue prosecution with this action, pro se, within thirty days of the date of this Order. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in the dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff's Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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