Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_05-cv-00189/USCOURTS-ared-2_05-cv-00189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

 On March 23, 2006, the parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate

Judge. See docket entry #26.

2

 Defendants actually filed a “Motion to Dismiss.” See docket entry #31. However, because

Defendants’ Motion included supportive documentation, the Court notified the parties that it was

construing it as a Motion for Summary Judgment. See docket entry #33; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b) (providing that, if “matters outside of the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the

court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule

56").

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HELENA DIVISION

LARRY B. ZIEGLER 

REG #20513-009 PLAINTIFF

V. 2:05CV00189 JTR

 

JACKIE PRINCE, Medical Officer,

FCI, Forrest City, Arkansas; and

S. CANTRELL, Correctional Officer DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL1

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Complex located in Forrest

City, Arkansas, has commenced this pro se action alleging that Defendants violated the Federal Tort

Claims Act (“FTCA”) and his constitutional rights, as protected by Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents

of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), when they: (1) failed to provide him adequate

medical care for a torn rotator cuff in his shoulder; and (2) retaliated against him by issuing a false

disciplinary charge and transferred him to another unit. See docket entries #1 and #6. 

On May 16, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment2

 and Supporting Brief

arguing, among other things, that the case should be dismissed, without prejudice, because Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-00189-JTR Document 38 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 3
3

 Specifically, Defendants argued that: (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies, as required by the FTCA and the Prison Litigation Reform Act; (2) Plaintiff named the

wrong defendant in regard to his FTCA claim; (3) Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity on

the Bivens claims brought against them in their official capacities; and (4) Plaintiff cannot prevail,

as a matter of law, on his Bivens claims. See docket entries #31 and #32. 

4

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that: “It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to

promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address,

to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. A party

appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and

telephone number. If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to

within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se

shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Emphasis

added.) 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.3

 See docket entries #31 and #32. On May 18, 2006,

the Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to file a Response to Defendants’ Motion. See docket entry #33.

Importantly, the Court advised Plaintiff that his failure to timely and properly do so would result in

the dismissal of his case, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).4

 Id. 

On June 28, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension to file his Response. See

docket entry #36. Once again, the Court reminded Plaintiff that his failure to timely and properly

do so would result in the dismissal of his case, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).

Id. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s June 28, 2006 Order

or file a second Motion requesting an extension of time to file his Response to Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), this case is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely and properly comply with the Court’s June 28, 2006 Order.

Case 2:05-cv-00189-JTR Document 38 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 3
2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry #31) is DISMISSED, AS

MOOT. 

3. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from this Order of Dismissal and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good

faith.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2006.

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00189-JTR Document 38 Filed 08/09/06 Page 3 of 3