Grant v. Craig, No. 4:2018cv00008 - Document 9 (W.D. Ky. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 5/1/18: Because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in the time allotted, the action will be dismissed for the reasons stated in the Courts 3/26/2018, Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal. cc: Plaintiff(pro se), Defts, General Counsel (DJT)

Download PDF
Grant v. Craig Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT OWENSBORO DANIEL WADE GRANT v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18CV-P8-JHM DAVID CRAIG DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Daniel Wade Grant, an inmate at the Daviess County Detention Center, filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Defendant David Craig subjected him to excessive force. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered March 26, 2018 (DN 7), the Court conducted an initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Upon screening, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant in his official capacity and ordered that Plaintiff may amend his complaint within 30 days to sue Defendant in his individual capacity. The Court warned Plaintiff as follows: “Plaintiff is WARNED that should he fail to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Court will enter an Order dismissing the action for the reasons stated herein.” More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or take any other action in this matter. Because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in the time allotted, the action will be dismissed for the reasons stated in the Court’s March 26, 2018, Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal. Date: May 1, 2018 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendants General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Legal Counsel 4414.010 Dockets.Justia.com

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.