Sills v. Edwards et al
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that the District Court dismiss the 1 Complaint without prejudice, under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), for failure to comply with the 5 Court's Order of 12/8/08. Objections to R&R due by 1/23/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 1/9/09. (hph)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS E A S T E R N DIVISION L E O N A R D A. SILLS A D C #138335 V. W E N D Y KELLEY, 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 Ju d g e Susan Webber Wright. 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 sis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that f in 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 eleven (11) 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 lerk , United States District Court E a ste rn District of Arkansas 6 0 0 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 L ittle Rock, AR 72201-3325 CASE NO. 2:08CV00198 SWW/BD DEFENDANTS
B a c k gro u n d P lain tiff Leonard A. Sills filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action (docket entry #1),
a lo n g with a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (#2), in the Western District o f Arkansas. The Western District transferred Plaintiff's case to this Court (#3, #4). On December 8, 2008, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in fo rm a pauperis because Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated in the Arkansas Department o f Correction ("ADC") and the pending motion did not reflect Plaintiff's post-release f in a n c ia l status. Plaintiff was ordered to file a current motion to proceed in forma p a u p e ris within thirty days of the entry of the Court's Order (#5). In addition, the Court n o ted that Plaintiff's Complaint (#1) failed to allege an injury, as required to state a claim f o r deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs, and ordered Plaintiff to f ile an amended complaint which included allegations of his injury. The Plaintiff was req u ired to file the amended complaint also within thirty days of the entry of the Court's O rd e r (#5). The Plaintiff was warned that failure to fully comply with the Order could re su lt in dismissal of his action under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Eastern District of A rk a n s a s and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's Order and the time for doing so has p a ss e d . Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or a current motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has further failed to inform the Court and other parties in this p ro c e e d in g of his new address as required by Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
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 Order of D e c e m b e r 8, 2008 (#5). DATED this 9th day of January, 2009.
____________________________________ 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?