Toston v. Parson

E.D. Arkansas

Toston v. Parson

DecidedAugust 27, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00319

StatusUnknown

This text of Toston v. Parson (Toston v. Parson) 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.

Bluebook

Toston v. Parson, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION CHARLES TOSTON PLAINTIFF v. Case No: 4:24-cv-00319-BRW-PSH

RICK PARSON, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Mail sent to Plaintiff Charles Toston at his address-of-record1 was returned to the Court as “undeliverable” because Mr. Toston was no longer living at the address he provided.2 On July 19,

2024, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Harris entered an order informing Mr. Toston that the mail could not be delivered to him at the address he provided and warning him that this case would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to update his address within 30 days.3 It has been over 30 days since Mr. Toston was directed to update his address, and he has not done so. His mail continues to be returned as undeliverable.4 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.5 IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of August, 2024. _______B_I_L_L_Y_ _R_O__Y_ _W__IL_S__O_N__________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Doc. No. 2. 2 Doc. No. 13. 3 Doc. No. 14. 4 Doc. Nos. 15-16. 5 See also 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION CHARLES TOSTON PLAINTIFF v. Case No: 4:24-cv-00319-BRW-PSH

RICK PARSON, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Mail sent to Plaintiff Charles Toston at his address-of-record1 was returned to the Court as “undeliverable” because Mr. Toston was no longer living at the address he provided.2 On July 19,

2024, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Harris entered an order informing Mr. Toston that the mail could not be delivered to him at the address he provided and warning him that this case would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to update his address within 30 days.3 It has been over 30 days since Mr. Toston was directed to update his address, and he has not done so. His mail continues to be returned as undeliverable.4 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.5 IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of August, 2024. _______B_I_L_L_Y_ _R_O__Y_ _W__IL_S__O_N__________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Doc. No. 2. 2 Doc. No. 13. 3 Doc. No. 14. 4 Doc. Nos. 15-16. 5 See also 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Toston v. Parson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toston-v-parson-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack