Jackson v. Baptist Hospital East et al, No. 3:2010cv00761 - Document 7 (W.D. Ky. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 4/5/2011. The Court will dismiss this action by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (AEP) Modified on 4/5/2011: corrected cc: list (AEP).

Download PDF
Jackson v. Baptist Hospital East et al Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV-761-H JERRI LEIGH JACKSON PLAINTIFF v. BAPTIST HOSPITAL EAST et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 21, 2011, acting without the assistance of counsel, Plaintiff Jerri Leigh Jackson filed the above-styled action against Baptist Hospital East and the Louisville EEOC Area Office. She also applied to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 28, 2011, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff s application (DN 5). The Clerk of Court mailed the Order to Plaintiff at her address of record on file with the Court. On March 21, 2011, the Copy of the Court s Order was returned by the United States Postal Service indicating that Plaintiff had refused to accept delivery (DN 6). Plaintiff has not provided the Court with an alternate address nor taken any action in this case since December 2010. Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to keep this Court advised of a current address where she could be reached by the Court and by Defendants and to litigate her claims actively. 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. ). Plaintiff has failed in her duties. Additionally, her refusal to accept mail from the Court indicates that she no longer desires to prosecute this action. Therefore, the Dockets.Justia.com Court will dismiss this action by separate Order. April 5, 2011 Date: cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4412.008

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.