From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chapman v. Battle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION
Jan 9, 2012
NO. 7:11-CV-70 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2012)

Opinion

NO. 7:11-CV-70 (HL)

01-09-2012

JOE CASS CHAPMAN, Plaintiff. v. Captain BATTLE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff JOE CASS CHAPMAN filed in this Court a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an Order dated December 2, 2011 (Doc. 17), this Court instructed Plaintiff to recast his complaint. The Court expressly informed Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the Court's directive within twenty-one (21) days, his case would be dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the above instructions or otherwise respond to this Court's Order. Because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's instructions, his lawsuit is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

____________

HUGH LAWSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cr


Summaries of

Chapman v. Battle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION
Jan 9, 2012
NO. 7:11-CV-70 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2012)
Case details for

Chapman v. Battle

Case Details

Full title:JOE CASS CHAPMAN, Plaintiff. v. Captain BATTLE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

Date published: Jan 9, 2012

Citations

NO. 7:11-CV-70 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2012)

Citing Cases

Pecue v. West

Others seem doubtful. ( McDavitt v. Boyer, 169 Ill. 475, 483, 485; Chapman v. Battle, 124 Ga. 574.)…

Hardaway v. Sherman Enterprises

Taylor v. Chambers, 2 Ga. App. 178 ( 58 S.E. 369). The privilege thus accorded is upon the grounds of public…