Perry/Miller v. Norris et al
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that the District Court dismiss the 1 Complaint without prejudice. Objections to R&R due no later than 14 days from the date the Recommended Disposition is received. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 1/22/10. (hph)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS N O R T H E R N DIVISION F R A N C E S RENEE PERRY/MILLER A D C # 708998 V. L A R R Y NORRIS, et al. R E C O M M E N D E D DISPOSITION I. P r o c e d u r e for Filing Objections T h e following Recommended Disposition has been sent to United States District J u d g e Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this re c o m m e n d a tio n . Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal b a s is for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that fin d in g and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your o b je c tio n s must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later th a n fourteen (14) days from the date you receive the Recommended Disposition. A copy w ill be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in w a iv e r of the right to appeal questions of fact. M a il your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: C le rk , United States District Court E a s te rn District of Arkansas 6 0 0 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 L ittle Rock, AR 72201-3325 C A S E NO. 1:09CV00064 BSM/BD DEFENDANTS
P L A IN T IF F
B ackground O n November 30, 2009, Plaintiff brought this action pro se under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (docket entry #1). Upon review of the record, the Court noted that Plaintiff had n o t filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the statutory filing fee. On December 2, 2009, this Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the statutory filing fee within thirty (30) days from the entry of th e December 2, 2009 Order (#2). In addition, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an a m e n d e d complaint adequately stating a claim against the named Defendants. On December 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed an incomplete motion to proceed in forma p a u p e ris (#4), a motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint (#5), and a m o tio n to amend her complaint (#6). On December 21, 2009, this Court denied P la in tiff's incomplete motion to proceed in forma pauperis, granted Plaintiff's request for a n extension of time, and ordered Plaintiff to submit a complete motion to proceed in fo r m a pauperis within thirty days, and an amended complaint within twenty-one days, of th e entry of the Order (#7). In addition, this Court recommended denial of Plaintiff's m o tio n to amend (#9). The District Court adopted this recommendation on January 22, 2 0 1 0 (#11). P la in tiff has failed to submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the s ta tu to ry filing fee, and the time to do so has passed. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint adequately stating a claim against the named defendants. Despite an extension of time, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's Orders (#2 2
and #7). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint (#1) should be dismissed without prejudice u n d e r Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). III. C o n c lu s io n T h e Court recommends that the District Court dismiss the Complaint (#1) without p re ju d ic e , under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), for failure to comply with the Court's Orders of December 2, 2009 (#2), and December 21, 2009 (#7). D A T E D this 22nd day of January, 2010.
___________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?