Salam v. Delaney et al
ORDER declining to adopt 7 Report and Recommendations; motion 8 Motion for Order filing charges against defendants terminated, construed as plaintiffs objections to R&R. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on August 28, 2012. (cnn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
AL JABBAR SALAM
CASE NO. 12-CV-1040
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JANET
DELANEY; SGT. COLLIER; SGT.
MEEKS; SGT. RICHARDSON; JAILER J.
HAYES; JAILER PITTS; JAILER SMITH;
JAILER EDWARD; JAILER C. HAYES;
JAILER TURNER; MRS. RASEBERRY;
and JAILER MURPHY
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed June 28, 2012 by the Honorable
Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 7).
Judge Bryant Recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply
with a Court order. After reviewing the record de novo, the Court declines to adopt Judge Bryant’s
Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff was ordered to filed an Amended Complaint by May 18, 2012. (ECF No. 3). On
May 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to filed his Amended Complaint. (ECF
No. 5). That motion was granted, even though it was not timely filed, and Plaintiff was ordered to
file his Amended Complaint by June 25, 2012. Plaintiff failed to file his Amended Complaint on
June 25, and on June 28, Judge Bryant issued his Report and Recommendation.
On July 17, after Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation was issued, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Charges to be Filed Against Defendants. (ECF No. 8). On July 18, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 10). In his Motion for Charges to be Filed Against Defendants (ECF
No. 8), Plaintiff states that Defendants have been tampering with his mail, preventing him from
sending mail, and denying him paper to write with. Plaintiff claims that he had to tear paper out of
the back of a book in order to file the motion. While Plaintiff’s motion is not titled as an objection
to the Report and Recommendation, the motion does address the issues set forth in the Report and
Recommendation and attempts to explain why Plaintiff did not file his Amended Complaint on time.
Accordingly, the Court will construe this the motion as a timely filed objection to the Report and
Upon consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown why he was unable
to comply with Judge Bryant’s previous order. For this reason, the Court declines to adopt the
Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) will be considered as
timely filed. Because Plaintiff’s Motion for Charges to be Filed Against Defendants (ECF No. 8)
is being construed as Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Clerk is directed
to terminate the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of August, 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?