Sweigart v. Johnson et al
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that the District Court dismiss 2 Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice, under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Objections to R&R due 11 days from the date the recommendation is received. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 11/9/09. (hph)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS W E S T E R N DIVISION
N E I L D. SWEIGART V. C A R L JOHNSON, 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: No. 4:09CV00501-JLH-BD
P L A IN T IF F
T h e following Recommended Disposition has been sent to Chief United States D is tric t Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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 recommendation. A copy will be f u rn is h e d to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of th e 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 July 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(d o c k e t entry #2). Plaintiff also submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (#1). The motion was denied by Order of August 10, 2009 (#5) because Plaintiff's application w a s incomplete in that it did not include a signed affidavit with a description of Plaintiff's p e rs o n a l assets and possible sources of income, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1815(a). Plaintiff was directed to submit a new request to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $ 3 5 0 .0 0 statutory filing fee within 30 days of entry of that Order (#5). Plaintiff was f u rth e r directed to file an Amended Complaint specifically describing the constitutional v io la tio n he allegedly suffered and the unconstitutional conduct of each named D e f e n d a n t. Plaintiff filed notice of change-of-address (#7) on September 14, 2009, informing th e Court that he had been released from the custody of the Pulaski County Detention F a c ility. Because it was unclear whether Plaintiff had received the Court's Order of A u g u s t 10, 2009, a second copy of the Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his new address on S e p te m b e r 28, 2009, along with an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff w a s directed to comply with the Court's August 10, 2009, Order on or before October 28, 2 0 0 9 (#8). Plaintiff was instructed that failure to comply with the Order could result in d is m is s a l of this action under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and the Federal Rules of Civil P ro c e d u re .
Plaintiff has failed either to file an Amended Complaint or to submit a complete a p p lic a tio n to proceed in forma pauperis, and the time allowed for doing so has passed. III. C o n c lu s io n : T h e Court recommends that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint w ith o u t prejudice, under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, f o r failure to comply with the Court's Orders of August 10, 2009 (#5) and September 28, 2 0 0 9 (#8). DATED this 9th day of November, 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?