Immel v. Robertson
This text of Immel v. Robertson (Immel v. Robertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION TYLER LEE IMMEL PLAINTIFF #202300151 v. Case No: 3:24-cv-00025 BRW-PSH SHEILA ROBERTSON, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER On February 15, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Harris entered an order informing Mr. Immel that he must file an amended complaint within 30 days.1 Mr. Immel was warned that his complaint may be dismissed if he did not file an amended complaint. It has been over 30 days since Mr. Immel was directed to file an amended complaint, and he has not done so. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), failure to respond to court orders, and for failure to prosecute.2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2024. ______B_I_L_L_Y__ R__O_Y_ _W__I_L_S_O_N___________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Doc. No. 3. 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 exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Immel v. Robertson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/immel-v-robertson-ared-2024.