Fabrizio v. Arkansas Department of Correction et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 10 Partial Report and Recommendations and dismissing, without prejudice, defts Burrows and McGowan. The claim against deft Smith remains. The Court will dismiss the rest of this case without prejudice unless plaintiff Fabrizio updates his address by 2/22/13. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/7/13. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION PLAINTIFF ANTHONY SCOTT FABRIZIO ADC# 654248 v. No. 1:12-cv-121-DPM-JJV ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; CINDY SMITH, North Central Unit; CHAD McGOWAN, North Central Unit; and BURROWS, Warden DEFENDANTS ORDER Fabrizio's mail has been coming back as undeliverable since late December. Document No. 8. He has not objected to Magistrate Judge Volpe's partial recommended disposition, Document No. 10, and his time to do so has expired. The Court adopts Judge Volpe's recommendation with clarifications. The Eleventh Amendment bars ยง 1983 suits seeking damages against States. Fabrizio's complaint is silent about what relief he seeks, but a fair reading is that he wants damages against the Arkansas Department of Correction (the State, as Judge Volpe recognized) for allegedly retaliatory discipline that extended his incarceration. So the Eleventh Amendment bar applies. Fabrizio's claims against the ADC are dismissed with prejudice; his claims against Burrows and McGowan are dismissed without prejudice. The claim against Smith remains. The case cannot proceed, however, unless Fabrizio maintains a current address on file with the Court. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Communication is impossible otherwise. The Court will therefore dismiss the rest of this case without prejudice unless Fabrizio updates his address by 22 February 2013. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 7 7-e_f-n VOV[ :AOIJ I -2-

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?