UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION SIERRA WHITE PLAINTIFF v. Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-187-GHD-DAS TONY ROGERS, HENRY RANDLE, CHAZ THOMPSON EDWARD HAYES, and KEVIN CROOK DEFENDANTS

Consolidated with

SIERRA WHITE PLAINTIFF v. Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-188-GHD-DAS KEVIN CROOK, HENRY RANDLE, UNKNOWN HOWARD and CHAZ THOMPSON DEFENDANTS ORDER Presently before the Court in these consolidated cases is Defendants Chaz Thompson and Edward Haynes’s Motion to Apply Order of Dismissal in Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-188 [Doc. No. 129, in Civ. Action No. 1:20-cv-188] requesting this Court dismiss Defendants Thompson and Haynes from the member case Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-188. The Court dismissed Defendants Thompson and Haynes from Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-187 after they filed a joint Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Order 117, Motion 104, in 1:20-cv-187]. Defendants Thompson and Haynes now seek to apply that Motion and the Court’s ruling on that Motion [Order 117, Motion 104, in 1:20-cv-187] to Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-188. Also before the Court is Defendant Kevin Crook’s Motion to Apply Order of Dismissal in Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-187 [130, in 1:20-cv-188] requesting this Court dismiss Defendant Crook from the consolidated case Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-187. The Court dismissed Defendant Crook from Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-188 after he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Order 124,

Motion 105, in 1:20-cv-188]. Defendant Crook now seeks to apply that Motion and the Court’s ruling on that Motion [Order 124, Motion 105, in 1:20-cv-188] to Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-187. Both Motions [129, 130, in 1:20-cv-188] acknowledge the same motion and law applies in Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-187 and Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-188. Plaintiff White has indicated no objection to these Motions [129, 130, in 1:20-cv-188]; therefore, the Motions [129, 130, in 1:20-

¢v-188] shall be GRANTED. All claims against Defendants Chaz Thompson and Edward Haynes shall be DISMISSED in Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-188, and all claims against Defendant Kevin Crook shall be DISMISSED in Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-187. No attorneys’ fees shall be awarded in either action. As for the claims against Defendants Unknown Howard and the Defendant John Does in Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-188 and Defendant John Does 1-4 in Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-187, Plaintiff has had approximately four years to “identify [these] potential defendants with enough specificity to enable the [C]ourt to direct service of process,” and has still failed to do so. Beck v. Dallas Police Dept., No. 3-10-cv-2392-K-BD,

, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2010) (citing cases). Plaintiff made no showing as to why she could not properly identify these unknown defendants, so the claims against the unknown defendants in both cases are DISMISSED.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-188 is therefore CLOSED. The claims against Defendant Tony Rogers in Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-187 shall PROCEED. All memoranda, depositions, declarations, and other materials considered by the Court in ruling on this motion are hereby incorpor into and made a part of the record in this action. SO ORDERED, this, the DF Sy of October, 2025.

¢ SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE