GLAZE v. STATE, 2:11CV00242 BSM. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120711802
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge. On June 26, 2012, plaintiff Cedric Glaze was ordered to file a response to separate defendants Green's and Rhodes's motion to compel by Friday, July 6, 2012. [Doc. No. 32]. Because Glaze has failed to comply, the motion to compel [Doc. No. 25] is granted, and Glaze is hereby directed to respond to Green's and Rhodes's first set for interrogatories and requests for production within ten days. Additionally, Glaze is hereby reminded of his obligation to mo
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge. On June 26, 2012, plaintiff Cedric Glaze was ordered to file a response to separate defendants Green's and Rhodes's motion to compel by Friday, July 6, 2012. [Doc. No. 32]. Because Glaze has failed to comply, the motion to compel [Doc. No. 25] is granted, and Glaze is hereby directed to respond to Green's and Rhodes's first set for interrogatories and requests for production within ten days. Additionally, Glaze is hereby reminded of his obligation to mon..
More
ORDER
BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge.
On June 26, 2012, plaintiff Cedric Glaze was ordered to file a response to separate defendants Green's and Rhodes's motion to compel by Friday, July 6, 2012. [Doc. No. 32]. Because Glaze has failed to comply, the motion to compel [Doc. No. 25] is granted, and Glaze is hereby directed to respond to Green's and Rhodes's first set for interrogatories and requests for production within ten days.
Additionally, Glaze is hereby reminded of his obligation to monitor and diligently prosecute this action. See Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) (providing for dismissal without prejudice when a party fails to respond within thirty days to any order).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
