Wheat v. Miller County Jail et al

Filing 40

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by James David Wheat, recommending claims against Corporal Hogan be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 2/22/2010. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 5, 2010. (cap)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JAMES DAVID WHEAT v. DEPUTY JONES, Miller County Jail; CORPORAL HOGAN, Miller County Jail; JAILER DOUG ARNOLD, Miller County Jail; FORMER SHERIFF LINDA RAMBO; and FORMER JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JANICE NICHOLSON Civil No. 4:09-cv-04036 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P lain tiff, James David Wheat, filed this civil rights 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. The Court ordered service on the Defendants on June 8, 2009 (Doc. 7). When the United States Marshal Service attempted to serve Defendant Corporal Hogan (hereinafter Hogan), they were advised that he no longer worked at the Miller County Detention Center. Defendants were then directed to provide the Court with Hogan's current address (Doc. 25). When the address was received, an order directing service on Hogan was issued (Doc. 29). The return of service was returned unexecuted on November 18, 2009 (Doc. 35). A notation on the return provides as follows: "All investigative means including computer checks and field interviews have failed to locate this person." As Hogan cannot be located to be served, I recommend that the claims against him be dismissed without prejudice. -1- The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this report and recommendation in w h ich to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely o b ject io n s may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are rem in d ed that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the d istrict court. DATED this 5th day of February 2010. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2-

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?