KING v. OUTLAW, 2:11-cv-00145-DPM-JTK. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120127c01
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 25, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 25, 2012
Summary: ORDER JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24). As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Failure to respond to this Court's Order may result in the dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to prosecute. Se
Summary: ORDER JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24). As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Failure to respond to this Court's Order may result in the dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to prosecute. See..
More
ORDER
JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24). As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Failure to respond to this Court's Order may result in the dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
