Madison v. MDOC, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-01639-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-09-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligence - Dismissal for lack of prosecution - M.R.C.P. 41(d) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: Negligence |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-24-2006 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Lester F. Williamson Disposition: CASE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. Case Number: 04-CV-086® |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | HENRY L. MADISON |
HENRY L. MADISON (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHRISTOPHER EPPS, COMMISSIONER, DR. JOHN BEARRY, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, AND DR. JUAN SANTOS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JANE L. MAPP | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Negligence - Dismissal for lack of prosecution - M.R.C.P. 41(d) |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2004, Henry Madison, a prisoner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, filed a suit pro se alleging that he suffered injury because he was negligently denied proper medical treatment. He named as defendants various employees of MDOC. Madison asked that the court appoint him counsel, which the court denied. The MDOC defendants answered the complaint denying all the substantive allegations. In 2005, Madison filed a document styled “Brief in Support of Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Conviction and Sentence.” The pleading set forth arguments typical of a motion for post-conviction relief. The document was filed under the same cause number as his negligence filing. Nothing further happened in the case until more than a year later, when the circuit court clerk sent the parties a clerk’s motion to dismiss for want of prosecution pursuant to M.R.C.P. 41(d). No action was taken by Madison, and the case was dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Madison appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In his appellate brief Madison discusses the merits of his claim of negligence. He makes no explanation regarding why he let his pleading lag on the docket of Lauderdale County without taking action. The trial court clearly did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. Both the clerk and the court followed the requirements of M.R.C.P. 41(d) to the letter. The facts show that the court actually had no discretion. Madison gave no response to the clerk’s motion as to why his case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, so the circuit court had no choice but to dismiss the action under the mandatory “shall dismiss” language of the rule. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
