Oates v. Mutter et al, No. 1:2014cv00120 - Document 8 (W.D. Ky. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers. Because it appears that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. cc:Plaintiff, pro se (ERH)

Download PDF
Oates v. Mutter et al Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT BOWLING GREEN CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV-P120-GNS KEEMONT LOUIS OATES PLAINTIFF v. MATT MUTTER et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Keemont Louis Oates, a pro se prisoner, initiated this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon filing the instant action, he assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(d) (“All pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of 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 Clerk of Court sent a mailing to Plaintiff on September 25, 2014. On October 27, 2014, that mailing was returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff apparently is no longer housed at his address of record, and he has not advised the Court of a change of address. Therefore, neither notices from this Court nor filings by Defendants in this action can 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 Dockets.Justia.com to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. Date: December 19, 2014 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4416.010 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.