Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

( h U Case 3:03-cv-00970-PCD Document 23 Filed O9/O9/2004 Page 1 ofcégc JQ-) "ij _`
l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT g f _' I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ] · ‘·
guar sti.? —— 4 V2 9* 08
MARTIN DICKINSON PI C_\m_;_;a;,:_?_ W,
PRISONER I-A i in T i` K
v. CASE NO. 3:03cv970 (PCD)(J GM) if
KEITH SCOTT, ET AL. \
l
l
l
RULING AND ORDER
On February 11, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on various grounds. On
I February 18, 2004, the court issued an Order of Notice to Pro Se Litigant informing the plaintiff
l that he must file a response to the motion to dismiss or the motion would be granted absent
objection, In response to the notice, the plaintiffs tiled a motion for extension of time dated l
February 24, 2004. On May 7, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs motion for extension of [
time and directed him to respond to the motion within twenty days. The plaintiff failed to
respond to the motion within the time specified.
On July 19, 2004, the court issued a second Order of Notice to Pro Se Litigant. The court
also cautioned the plaintiff that if he failed to file her opposition to the motion to dismiss on or
before August 2, 2004, the motion would be granted absent objection. The plaintiff has failed to
file a response to the motion to dismiss and has made no other attempt to contact the court with
respect to this case. The court concludes that the plaintiffs inaction constitutes a failure to
prosecute this case. i
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant
to Rule 4l(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Q Johnson v. M. Melnick & Co., Inc., et
i
l
i
l












. mm`!
· -·- Case 3:03-cv-00970-PCD Document 23 Filed O9/O9/2004 Page 2 of 2 i
l
I ag, No. 91 CIV. 796l(LAP), 1996 WL 239994, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 1996)("Even if a
Y defendant has not moved for such dismissal . . . a court [still] possesses the inherent authority to
i dismiss gig srgite a case for failure to prosecute [and obey a COllIT’S order].") p i
Ifplaintiff wishes to reopen the matter, he must tile a motion to reopen pursuant to Rule
60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. explaining why he has failed to respond to the motion to dismiss and ly J
attaching; a memorandum in response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In light ofthe
dismissal of this case, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 11] is DENIED as moot. The I
Clerk is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED this *2%; of September, 2004, at New gjjn, Comwticut.
United States District Judge
- l
l
r l
2
l