Hicks v. Lucas et al
ORDER denying 64 Motion for Reconsideration re 63 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations filed by Anthony - Hicks. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on October 16, 2012. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
SHERIFF PAUL LUCAS; CHIEF
DEPUTY JOE STRICKLAND;
CAPTAIN DAVID NORWOOD;
JAILER CHRIS GILL; JAILER
Before the Court is Plaintiff, Anthony Hicks’s, Objection to the Report and
Recommendation of Judge Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. (ECF No. 64). Plaintiff’s objection comes approximately 25 days after the Court
issued an Order adopting Judge Bryant’s report in its entirety. (ECF No. 63). Therefore, the
Court will address Plaintiff’s objection as a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth
below, the motion must be denied.
On October 26, 2011, Judge Bryant issued a report and recommendation to dismiss
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for failure to prosecute his case and failure to obey a Court Order by not
submitting his pre-hearing materials. (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff filed a timely objection to Judge
Bryant’s report. (ECF No. 54). On February 15, 2012, the Court declined to adopt Judge
Bryant’s report as its own and directed Plaintiff to file his pre-hearing materials, including
witness and exhibits lists, within 10 days. (ECF No. 55). On February 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed his
pre-hearing materials, including certain exhibits, but he did not submit a witness list. (ECF No.
56). On April 25, 2012, Judge Bryant issued an Order for Plaintiff to show cause for his failure
to include the witness list in his pre-hearing materials. (ECF No. 58). In that order, Judge Bryant
also extended a previous deadline, from May 2, 2012 to May 4, 2012, for Plaintiff to complete
his prehearing submission. Plaintiff failed to respond to that order. On May 9, 2012, Judge
Bryant issued a second report and recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to
respond to the show cause order and failure to prosecute his case. (ECF No. 62). On May 31,
2012, the Court adopted Judge Bryant’s report as its own. (ECF No. 63). Plaintiff now moves the
Court to reconsider its Order adopting Judge Bryant’s report. (ECF No. 64).
Plaintiff asserts that he submitted a letter on May 4, 2012 to the “pro se clerk,” notifying
her that he did not have any witnesses, and that he had already submitted all of the evidence he
intended to present in his pre-hearing materials. Plaintiff swears by affidavit that he sent the
letter to the Court. (ECF No. 64). Despite Plaintiff’s assertion, the Court never received a copy of
the May 4th letter, and Plaintiff did not attach a copy of the letter to his motion or affidavit.
Because the Court has not received the letter that Plaintiff describes, and because Plaintiff failed
to submit a witness list, respond to Judge Bryant’s show cause order, or timely object to the
report and recommendation, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein and those stated in its Order adopting Judge
Bryant’s report and recommendation, (ECF No. 63), the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration should be and hereby is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of October, 2012.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Hon. Susan O. Hickey
United States District 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?