Henry v. Higgins et al

Filing 6

ORDER approving and adopting 4 Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects; dismissing, without prejudice, 1 Complaint; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 9/26/2024. (ldb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
QUANTERRIOUS HENRY
V.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:24-CV-00622-LPR

ERIC HIGGINS, Pulaski County Sheriff, Pulaski
County Regional Detention; NELSON, Jail
Administrator, Pulaski County Regional
Detention; and BARRY HYDE, Quorum Court
Judge, Pulaski County Quorum Court

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge Benecia B. Moore (Doc. 4). No objections have been filed, and the time for
doing so has expired.1 After a de novo review of the RD, along with careful consideration of the
entire case record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the RD in its entirety as this Court’s
findings and conclusions in all respects.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for
failure to prosecute. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma
pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of September 2024.

________________________________
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

It appears the RD was returned as undeliverable because the Plaintiff is no longer at the detention facility. See
Doc. 5. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to update his address. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). However, out of an abundance of
caution, the Court will give Plaintiff 30 days to update his address with the Court and file objections to the RD.
Plaintiff must file any such objections in the form of a Motion to Reconsider this Order of dismissal and the
corresponding Judgment. If Plaintiff does file such a Motion, the Court will reconsider de novo any part of the RD
that is properly objected to and evaluate whether this case should be re-opened.