Askew v. Hobbs et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that pltf's complt be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with LR 5.5 (c)(2) 2 . The Court certify that an ifp appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action be considered frivolous and not in good faith. Objections to R&R due by 11/14/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 10/31/2008. (lej)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION FRANK W. ASKEW, JR. ADC #82276 V. RAY HOBBS et al. PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INS T RUCT IONS The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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 Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. NO: 5:08CV00094 JLH/HDY DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF
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 Plaintiff filed this complaint (docket entry #2), on April 8, 2008. On September 30, 2008, the Court entered a scheduling order which directed Plaintiff to submit a statement of his intent to continue with the prosecution of this case, along with a statement of facts, and a list of any witnesses deemed necessary, no later than October 30, 2008 (docket entry #46). That order also warned Plaintiff that, if he failed to respond, his lawsuit would be subject to dismissal. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the order. In fact, the scheduling order, which was sent to Plaintiff at his address of record, was returned as undeliverable, as was another mailing from this Court (docket entries #49#50). Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). 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:
Plaintiff's complaint (docket entry #2) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). 2. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment
dismissing this action be considered frivolous and not in good faith. DATED this 31 day of October, 2008.
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?