Banks v. Pulaski County Sheriff Dept., 4:19-CV-291-BD. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20200203773
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 31, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2020
Summary: ORDER BETH DEERE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Dadrain Banks, an inmate currently held at the Arkansas State Hospital, filed this lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. 1983. (Docket entry #1) Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint based on Mr. Banks's failure to timely comply with an order compelling him to respond to discovery requests. (#65) Mr. Banks has not responded to the motion. On December 17, 2019, the Court ordered Mr. Banks to sign a medical informatio
Summary: ORDER BETH DEERE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Dadrain Banks, an inmate currently held at the Arkansas State Hospital, filed this lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. 1983. (Docket entry #1) Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint based on Mr. Banks's failure to timely comply with an order compelling him to respond to discovery requests. (#65) Mr. Banks has not responded to the motion. On December 17, 2019, the Court ordered Mr. Banks to sign a medical information..
More
ORDER
BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Dadrain Banks, an inmate currently held at the Arkansas State Hospital, filed this lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #1) Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint based on Mr. Banks's failure to timely comply with an order compelling him to respond to discovery requests. (#65) Mr. Banks has not responded to the motion.
On December 17, 2019, the Court ordered Mr. Banks to sign a medical information release authorization and to respond to the Defendants' interrogatories and requests for production by December 31, 2019. (#64) To date, he has not complied with the Court's December 17 Order, and the time allowed for responding has passed. The Court specifically cautioned Mr. Banks that his claims could be dismissed if he failed to comply with the Court's Order. (#64)
Defendants' motion to dismiss (#65) is GRANTED. Mr. Banks's claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to comply with the Court's December 17, 2019 Order and his failure to prosecute this lawsuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
