Benest v. Miller County Detention Facility et al

Filing 17

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by Glen Ray Benest, recommending that this case be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and his failure to keep the Court and opposing counsel informed of his current address. Objections to R&R due by 12/28/2009. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on December 8, 2009. (cap)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WE S T ER N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS T E X A R K A N A DIVISION G LE N RAY BENEST v. C iv il No. 4:09-cv-04021 PLAINTIFF SHERIFF RON STOVALL; C H A R LE S NEFF, Administrator; and G A R Y TURNER, Head of Security D E FE N D A N T S R E P O R T AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Plaintiff, Glen Ray Benest (hereinafter Benest), filed this action pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and (3)(2007), the Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. When he filed the complaint, Benest was incarcerated in the Miller County Detention Facility. On June 2, 2009, Benest provided the court with a change of address (Doc. 10). The address provided was a private address, 3903 E. Broad, Texarkana, AR 71854. On June 10, 2009, mail sent to Benest by the Court was returned by the United States Postal Service marked: "Undeliverable as Addressed." On August 12, 2009, mail sent to Benest by the Court was again returned as undeliverable. On October 28, 2008, Defendants' filed a notice (Doc. 16) indicating that mail they sent to Benest had also been returned as undeliverable. The Court has not had a valid address on Benest since June. I therefore recommend that this case be dismissed based on Benest's failure to prosecute and his failure to keep the Court and opposing counsel informed of his current address. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the report and recommendation in w h ic h to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. D A T E D this 8th day of December 2009. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT 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?