Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_08-cv-00088/USCOURTS-ared-3_08-cv-00088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bruce Lynn Banks
Plaintiff
Aaron Davis
Defendant
Jack McCann
Defendant
Steve Metcalf
Defendant
John Smith
Defendant
John Sparks
Defendant

Document Text:

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

BRUCE LYNN BANKS PLAINTIFF

V. 3:08CV00088 BSM/HDY

JACK McCANN, Sheriff, Craighead County; JOHN

SMITH, Administrator, Craighead County Detention

Center; AARON DAVIS, Assistant Administrator, 

Craighead County Detention Center; JOHN 

SPARKS, Chief Jailer, Craighead County Detention

Center; and STEVE METCALF, Medical Supervisor, 

Craighead County Detention Center DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff, who was being held at the Craighead County Detention Facility, initiated this

42 U.S.C. §1983 action by filing a complaint raising claims of inadequate medical care. In

an Order dated June 25, 2008 (Doc. No. 2), the court directed plaintiff to submit an in forma

pauperis application and an amended complaint containing certain specifically-requested

information concerning the nature of his claims. Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to

file these pleadings and was specifically cautioned of the requirements of Local Rule

5.5(c)(2).

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that if any communication from the court to a pro se

litigant is not responded to within thirty days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice.

Case 3:08-cv-00088-BSM Document 4 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 2
2

More than thirty days have passed since the entry date of that order, and plaintiff has not

responded to the court’s order. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that this case

should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). See

Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (“District courts have inherent power to

dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and we review the exercise of this power

for abuse of discretion.”)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’s claims be and they are hereby

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

DATED this 29th day of September, 2008.

____________________________________

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00088-BSM Document 4 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 2