From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. Harris

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
Mar 12, 2007
CASE NO.: 5:04CV00292 BD (E.D. Ark. Mar. 12, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO.: 5:04CV00292 BD.

March 12, 2007


ORDER


Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint (docket entry #2) on August 10, 2004 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis by Order (docket entry #4) of November 23, 2004.

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Order (docket entry #27) of January 25, 2007. Records from the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) indicate that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated in the ADC, and as such, Plaintiff was ordered (docket entry #27) to submit current information regarding his financial status to determine whether he should be required to pay all, or a portion of, the remaining fees and costs of this lawsuit.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Order and lack of prosecution, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Eastern District of Arkansas. The trial date and existing deadlines established in the Scheduling Order (docket entry #29) of February 22, 2007, are terminated.


Summaries of

Hamilton v. Harris

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
Mar 12, 2007
CASE NO.: 5:04CV00292 BD (E.D. Ark. Mar. 12, 2007)
Case details for

Hamilton v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:DERRICK HAMILTON PLAINTIFF v. GRANT HARRIS, et al. DEFENDANTS

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

Date published: Mar 12, 2007

Citations

CASE NO.: 5:04CV00292 BD (E.D. Ark. Mar. 12, 2007)

Citing Cases

Vanzandt v. Heilman

The contention is that a court of equity will not enforce specific performance because of a lack of mutuality…

Cowan v. State ex Rel. Scherck

A peremptory writ of mandamus was not granted. The alternative writ was not discharged. Damages were not…