SOLOMON v. SANDERS, 4:13-cv-04126. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20150128g66
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2015
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff filed this section 1983 action on December 30, 2013. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Currently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 33. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Specifically, Defendants state they have been unable to effect service of Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories and Response
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff filed this section 1983 action on December 30, 2013. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Currently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 33. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Specifically, Defendants state they have been unable to effect service of Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories and Responses..
More
ORDER
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff filed this section 1983 action on December 30, 2013. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Currently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 33.
In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Specifically, Defendants state they have been unable to effect service of Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Request for Production on Plaintiff because he failed to keep Defendants and the Court apprised of his current address.
Since Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has been in contact with the Court, his address is current and accurate, and Plaintiff is actively prosecuting this case. Therefore, I find Defendants' Motion to Dismiss moot. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
