Edmonds v. Daviess County Detention Center, No. 4:2017cv00135 - Document 8 (W.D. Ky. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 4/10/2018: The 30-day period has expired, and the record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order. Therefore, the Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this action. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendant (JM)

Download PDF
Edmonds v. Daviess County Detention Center Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION TROY LEE EDMONDS PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17CV-P135-JHM DAVIESS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Troy Lee Edmonds filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DN 1) on October 4, 2017, while incarcerated at the Daviess County Detention Center. On January 31, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court of a change of his address. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered February 1, 2018 (DN 7), the Court conducted an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed the sole Defendant and all of the claims raised in the complaint. However, the Court allowed Plaintiff 30 days to amend his complaint to name as Defendant(s) the specific individual(s) he alleges were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need and to describe the facts surrounding how each Defendant allegedly violated his rights. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days would result in the entry of a final Order dismissing the entire action for the reasons stated therein. The 30-day period has expired, and the record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order. Therefore, the Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this action. Date: April 10, 2018 cc: Plaintiff, pro se Defendant 4414.003 Dockets.Justia.com

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.