Jones v. Walker et al

Filing 24

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION recommending 2 Jones' complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Objections due within 14 days of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 03/04/2025. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
LYNN D. JONES
ADC #132622
v.

PLAINTIFF
No: 4:24-cv-00649-KGB-PSH

AUBREY K. WALKER, et al.

DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
INSTRUCTIONS
The following Recommendation has been sent to Chief United States District
Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this
Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the
factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this
Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you
may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
DISPOSITION
Plaintiff Lynn D. Jones filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
on July 31, 2024 (Doc. No. 2).1 On December 13, 2024, Jones was granted leave to

1

In an Initial Order for Pro Se Prisoner Plaintiffs, the Court notified Jones of his
duty to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules for
the Eastern District of Arkansas. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that a party not represented
by counsel is obligated to monitor the progress of his case and to prosecute or defend it

proceed in forma pauperis and directed to file an amended complaint to clarify his
claims within 30 days (Doc. No. 20). He was cautioned that failure to file an
amended complaint may result in the dismissal of his case.
On January 6, 2025, Jones filed notice of a new address at the Varner Unit
(Doc. No. 21).2 A copy of the Court’s December 13, 2024 Order and a copy of the
docket sheet were sent to him at his new address that same date. See Doc. No. 22 &
January 6, 2025 Remark (a court only entry showing that the December 13, 2024
Order had been mailed to Plaintiff at his new address). Neither document were
returned as undeliverable.
Almost 60 days have passed, and Jones has not complied or otherwise
responded to the December 13, 2024 order. Accordingly, the Court finds that this
action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule
5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court’s orders. 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).

diligently. The Rule also provides that if any communication from the Court to a pro se
plaintiff is not responded to within thirty days, the case may be dismissed without
prejudice. See Doc. No. 3.
2
Jones’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court’s order
directing him to file an amended complaint initially mailed to his previous place of
incarceration were returned as undeliverable on January 6, 2025. See Doc. No. 23.

It is therefore recommended that Jones’ complaint (Doc. No. 2) be dismissed
without prejudice.
DATED this 4th day of March, 2025.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE