Cunningham v. McFadden

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Cunningham v. McFadden

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

BRYANT CUNNINGHAM PLAINTIFF #252-302

v. Case No. 4:22-CV-00836-LPR

McFADDEN, Sheriff Officer, Pulaski County Detention Facility, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff Bryant Cunningham, an inmate at the Pulaski County Detention Facility, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

On September 15, 2022, the Court ordered Mr. Cunningham to, within 30 days, either (1) return a completed in forma pauperis application, including an accompanying affidavit and jail account information sheet, or (2) pay the $402.00 filing and administrative fees.2 The Court warned Mr. Cunningham that his failure to comply with the Order may cause his Complaint to be dismissed.3 Mr. Cunningham has not complied with, or otherwise responded to, the September 15 Order. The time for doing so has expired. Mr. Cunningham’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.4 The Court certifies pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3) that an in forma pauperis appeal from the Order and Judgment dismissing this action would not be taken in good faith.

1 Compl. (Doc. 1) at 1, 3. 2 Order (Doc. 2). The September 15 Order was entered by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris.

Id.

3

Id.

4 See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626

, 630–31 (1962) (district courts have power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of December 2022.

LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown