McCall v. USA
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that the District Court dismiss 1 Plaintiff's Complaint wihtout prejudice, under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), for failure to comply with the Court's Order of 3/17/09 and the Order of 6/9/09. Objections to R&R due by 10/7/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 9/23/09. (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 B O N D A R Y MCCALL, R e g . # 43827-019 V. C A S E NO. 2:09cv00023-SWW-BD DEFENDANTS
P L A IN T IF F
U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA, 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 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 s is 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 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
B ackground: On February 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(d o c k e t entry #1). Plaintiff did not move to proceed in forma pauperis, nor did he pay the $ 3 5 0 .0 0 filing fee to initiate this action with the Court. On March 17, 2009, the Court issued an Order (#2) directing Plaintiff to file a c o m p le te application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $350.00 filing fee, within th irty days of entry of the order. Plaintiff was further ordered to file an Amended C o m p la in t identifying and naming as Defendants the individuals who acted u n c o n stitu tio n a lly and stating any injury he suffered based on the alleged constitutional v io la tio n s . Plaintiff failed to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay th e $350.00 filing fee, and further failed to file an Amended Complaint in the time a llo w e d . Thus, a Recommended Disposition was entered by this Court (#4) for dismissal o f Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) for failure to c o m p ly with the Court's Order of March 17, 2009. On May 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Objection (#6) to the Recommended D is p o s itio n and filed an Amended Complaint (#8) on June 1, 2009. However, an a p p lic a tio n to proceed in forma pauperis still was not submitted, nor was the $350.00 f ilin g fee paid.
By Order of June 9, 2009 (#9), Judge Susan Webber Wright directed Plaintiff to s u b m it the $350.00 filing fee or a properly completed in forma pauperis application w ith in 30 days. Plaintiff has failed to comply with that court order. Plaintiff was previously notified that failure to timely comply with court orders c o u ld result in dismissal of his case. Further, it appears Plaintiff also has failed to notify th e Court of his new address, as is evidenced by mail returned to the Court (#11) on June 2 3 , 2009. III. C o n c lu s io n : T h e Court recommends that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff's Amended C o m p la in t without prejudice, under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), for failure to comply with the C o u rt's Order of March 17, 2009 and the Order of June 9, 2009. DATED this 23rd day of September, 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?