Pendegraft v. Campanella, 17-CV-447-SMY-RJD. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20191119994
Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants Jeanne Campanella, Kevin Murphy, and Tracie Sanford's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (Doc. 129). Defendants assert that Plaintiff Curtis Pendegraft failed to update his address, in violation of Local Rule 3.1 and this Court's Screening Order, because a piece of mail was returned to them as undeliverable (Doc. 9). Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly issued an Order to Show Cause directing Pe
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants Jeanne Campanella, Kevin Murphy, and Tracie Sanford's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (Doc. 129). Defendants assert that Plaintiff Curtis Pendegraft failed to update his address, in violation of Local Rule 3.1 and this Court's Screening Order, because a piece of mail was returned to them as undeliverable (Doc. 9). Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly issued an Order to Show Cause directing Pen..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STACI M. YANDLE, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants Jeanne Campanella, Kevin Murphy, and Tracie Sanford's Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (Doc. 129). Defendants assert that Plaintiff Curtis Pendegraft failed to update his address, in violation of Local Rule 3.1 and this Court's Screening Order, because a piece of mail was returned to them as undeliverable (Doc. 9). Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly issued an Order to Show Cause directing Pendegraft to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for want of persecution (Doc. 138). In response, Pendegraft filed a Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 139). Judge Daly denied Pendegraft's Motion to Recruit Counsel but found he had satisfied the Show Cause Order because his address on the Motion is the same as the address on file with the Clerk of Court. In light of the foregoing, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
