Filed: Dec. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER RONALD A. WHITE , District Judge . On September 4, 2016, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner incarcerated at Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP) in McAlester, Oklahoma, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Dkt. 1). He alleged Defendant Regina VanBlaricom, OSP Medical Administrator, violated his constitutional rights by denying him dental care and by failing to respond to his grievances (Dkt. 1). He paid the initial partial filing fee on September 19, 2018.
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER RONALD A. WHITE , District Judge . On September 4, 2016, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner incarcerated at Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP) in McAlester, Oklahoma, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Dkt. 1). He alleged Defendant Regina VanBlaricom, OSP Medical Administrator, violated his constitutional rights by denying him dental care and by failing to respond to his grievances (Dkt. 1). He paid the initial partial filing fee on September 19, 2018. ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
RONALD A. WHITE, District Judge.
On September 4, 2016, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner incarcerated at Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP) in McAlester, Oklahoma, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dkt. 1). He alleged Defendant Regina VanBlaricom, OSP Medical Administrator, violated his constitutional rights by denying him dental care and by failing to respond to his grievances (Dkt. 1). He paid the initial partial filing fee on September 19, 2018.
On November 5, 2018, the Court entered an Order Staying Proceedings and Requiring Special Report (Dkt. 11) and mailed a copy to Plaintiff. On December 3, 2018, Plaintiff's copy of the Order was returned, marked " Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward" (Dkt. 12). According to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections Offender website, Plaintiff remains incarcerated at OSP.1 Because Plaintiff apparently has refused to accept mail from the Court, this action is dismissed without prejudice for his failure to prosecute. See United States ex rel. Geminis v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 854-56 (10th Cir. 2005) (dismissing appeal sua sponte for failure to prosecute because appellant disappeared and failed to meet court deadlines).
ACCORDINGLY, this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
