ARMOUR v. WITOFF, 3:14-CV-00101-NJR-DGW. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20160509870
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 06, 2016
Latest Update: May 06, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for case management purposes. On March 10, 2014, the Court completed its threshold review of Plaintiff Demetrius Armour's civil rights complaint (Doc. 9). The Court advised Plaintiff that service would not be made on the unknown defendants, "Defendants Unknown SST Members," "until such time as Plaintiff has identified them by name in a properly filed amended complaint" (Doc. 9, p. 14). On July 29,
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for case management purposes. On March 10, 2014, the Court completed its threshold review of Plaintiff Demetrius Armour's civil rights complaint (Doc. 9). The Court advised Plaintiff that service would not be made on the unknown defendants, "Defendants Unknown SST Members," "until such time as Plaintiff has identified them by name in a properly filed amended complaint" (Doc. 9, p. 14). On July 29, ..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for case management purposes. On March 10, 2014, the Court completed its threshold review of Plaintiff Demetrius Armour's civil rights complaint (Doc. 9). The Court advised Plaintiff that service would not be made on the unknown defendants, "Defendants Unknown SST Members," "until such time as Plaintiff has identified them by name in a properly filed amended complaint" (Doc. 9, p. 14). On July 29, 2014, the Court entered a Scheduling and Discovery Order giving Plaintiff until November 28, 2014, to identify the unknown defendants or to identify steps that can be taken to identify them (Doc. 27, p. 3). The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with that directive "will result in the dismissal of the John Does" (Id.).
As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has neither identified, nor taken steps to identify, the unknown defendants, despite being appointed an attorney. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to properly prosecute his case as to these unknown defendants. Accordingly, and pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's claim against the unknown defendants in this action. See Lucien v. Breweur, 9 F.3d 26, 28 (7th Cir. 1993) (dismissal is a "feeble sanction" if it is without prejudice).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
