Staley et al v. Morgan et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that pltfs' complt be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with LR 5.5(c)(2) and for failure to respond to the Court's order 3 . The Court certify that an ifp appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith. Objections to R&R due by 7/22/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 7/8/2009. (lej)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LARRY LEROY STALEY #1139-09 JAMOCA TAIYE PRICE ADC #105793 V. RANDY MORGAN et al. PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INS T RUCT IONS The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than eleven (11) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 1. 2. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District 1 NO: 4:09CV00386 JMM/HDY DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFFS
Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 DISPOSITION Plaintiffs Larry Leroy Staley and Jamoca Taiye Price, currently held at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility, filed a pro se complaint (docket entry #3), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on May 22, 2009, along with incomplete applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket entries #1 & #2).1 Accordingly, on May 28, 2009, Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the full filing fee or to file properly completed applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket entry #4). Each Plaintiff was also ordered to file an amended complaint to clarify their claims. The order warned Plaintiffs that their failure to comply would result in the recommended dismissal of their claims. More than 30 days has passed, and Plaintiffs have not paid the filing fee, filed new IFP
Plaintiffs' applications did not contain a certificate or calculation sheet signed by an authorized official. 2
applications, filed amended complaints, or otherwise responded to the order.
circumstances, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and for failure to respond to the Court's order. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion). IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs' complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply
with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and for failure to respond to the Court's order. 2. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment
dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith. DATED this 8 day of July, 2009.
UNITED 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?