Wallace v. Lee et al (GPR), No. 2:2017cv00159 - Document 5 (E.D. Tenn. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this Order as to why his case against the remaining Defendants should not be dismissed for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court's previous Order. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A. Varlan on 2/7/19. (c/m Anthony Wallace #298510 RIVERBEND MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION 7475 COCKRILL BEND BOULEVARD NASHVILLE, TN 37209-1048 ) (ADA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wallace v. Lee et al (GPR) Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE ANTHONY WALLACE, Plaintiff, v. LIEUTENANT BAILEY, MS. STILES and MS. HATHAWAY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 2:17-CV-159-TAV-MCLC MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a pro se prisoner’s civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Anthony Wallace (“Plaintiff”). Upon initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order dismissing a number of claims and defendants but permitting an Eighth Amendment claim to proceed against the above-named defendants [Doc. 4]. The Memorandum and Order directed the Clerk’s Office to send Plaintiff service packets (a blank summons and USM Form 285) for the three remaining defendants and ordered Plaintiff to complete those service packets and return them to the Clerk’s office within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Memorandum and Order [Id. p. 22]. Plaintiff was forewarned that the failure to return the completed service packets within the time required could jeopardize his prosecution of this action [Id.]. The Court’s Memorandum and Order were entered on September 28, 2018, and the docket indicates that a copy of the Memorandum and Order, along with the service packets, were mailed to Plaintiff on that date at his last reported address [Doc. 4]. More than twenty Dockets.Justia.com days now have passed and, as of the date of this Order, the service packets have not been completed or returned. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this Order as to why his case against the remaining Defendants should not be dismissed for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court’s previous Order. Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he fails to timely comply with this Order this action will be dismissed with prejudice. ENTER: s/ Thomas A. Varlan CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
