Zlatin v. LMDC

W.D. Kentucky

Zlatin v. LMDC

DecidedJuly 22, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-00291

StatusUnknown

This text of Zlatin v. LMDC (Zlatin v. LMDC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zlatin v. LMDC, (W.D. Ky. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION

VLADIMIR ZLATIN PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-P291-GNS LMDCE et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(e) (“All pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential address, and, if different, mailing address, to the Clerk and to the opposing party or the opposing party’s counsel. Failure to notify the Clerk of an address change may result in the dismissal of the litigant’s case or other appropriate sanctions.”). The Court sent an Order to Plaintiff on May 15, 2019. That mailing was returned to the Court by the U.S. Postal Service marked “Return to Sender; Attempted Not Known; Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff has not advised the Court of his new address, and notices from this Court in this action cannot be served on Plaintiff. In such situations, courts have an inherent power “acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. Date: July 22, 2019 {~—S— ce: Plaintiff, pro se Greg N. Stivers, Chief Judge 4416.009 Uno Bertee vier urt

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION

VLADIMIR ZLATIN PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-P291-GNS LMDCE et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(e) (“All pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of residential address, and, if different, mailing address, to the Clerk and to the opposing party or the opposing party’s counsel. Failure to notify the Clerk of an address change may result in the dismissal of the litigant’s case or other appropriate sanctions.”). The Court sent an Order to Plaintiff on May 15, 2019. That mailing was returned to the Court by the U.S. Postal Service marked “Return to Sender; Attempted Not Known; Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff has not advised the Court of his new address, and notices from this Court in this action cannot be served on Plaintiff. In such situations, courts have an inherent power “acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. Date: July 22, 2019 {~—S— ce: Plaintiff, pro se Greg N. Stivers, Chief Judge 4416.009 Uno Bertee vier urt

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zlatin v. LMDC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zlatin-v-lmdc-kywd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack