LAFFERTY v. BABBIT, 4:14CV00156 BSM. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20141030844
Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge. Raymond Kyle Lafferty filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the Saline County Jail. On August 5, 2014, defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Lafferty's claims. Due to his expected release from custody, Lafferty was given until September 8, 2014, to respond to the motion. See Doc. No. 20. That order was returned as undeliverable. On September 4, 2014
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge. Raymond Kyle Lafferty filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the Saline County Jail. On August 5, 2014, defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Lafferty's claims. Due to his expected release from custody, Lafferty was given until September 8, 2014, to respond to the motion. See Doc. No. 20. That order was returned as undeliverable. On September 4, 2014,..
More
ORDER
BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge.
Raymond Kyle Lafferty filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the Saline County Jail. On August 5, 2014, defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Lafferty's claims. Due to his expected release from custody, Lafferty was given until September 8, 2014, to respond to the motion. See Doc. No. 20. That order was returned as undeliverable. On September 4, 2014, Lafferty was ordered to provide an updated address within thirty days, and was specifically warned that his failure to comply with the order could result in the dismissal of his claims without prejudice. That order was also returned as undeliverable. As of this date, Lafferty has not complied with the September 4, 2014 order, and the time for doing so has passed. Accordingly, Lafferty's claims are dismissed, without prejudice, under Local Rule 5.5. Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 14] is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
