Hampton v. Stine et al, No. 5:2019cv05036 - Document 22 (W.D. Ark. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER dismissing case without prejudice based on the Plaintiff's failure to obey an Order of the Court and his failure to prosecute this case. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on October 29, 2019. (tg)

Download PDF
Hampton v. Stine et al Doc. 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION LARRY D. HAMPTON v. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 5:19-05036 OFFICER STINE, Patrol Officer, Farmington Police Department; CHIEF HUBBARD, Farmington Police Department; and CITY OF FARMINGTON DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. On July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a notice of returned mail. (ECF No. 15). Defendants indicated that their initial disclosures were sent to the Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket sheet and were returned with a notation: “Return to Sender—Refused—Unable to Forward— Return to Sender.” In view of the fact that the mail had been refused, an Order (ECF No. 16) was entered giving Plaintiff until September 30, 2019, to advise the Court if he intended to pursue the case. Plaintiff was informed that failure to respond to the Order “shall result in the dismissal of this case.” Plaintiff did not respond to this Order. On October 1, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) notifying the Court the Plaintiff failed to appear at his deposition on September 10, 2019. The notice of deposition was dated August 14, 2019. Defense counsel made a record of Plaintiff’s nonappearance and the deposition was concluded. Defendants also advised the Court that all efforts to contact the Plaintiff had failed. 1 Dockets.Justia.com In an abundance of caution, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 19) directing Plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss by October 24, 2019. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to either of the Court’s Orders. The Orders (ECF No. 16 & 19) have not been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not sought an extension of time to file his responses. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on the Plaintiff’s failure to obey an Order of the Court and his failure to prosecute this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. IT IS SO ORDERED on this 29th day of October 2019. /s/P.K. Holmes,III P. K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2 41(b).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.