Marshall v. Martin et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by Robert L. Marshall, recommending that 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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WE S T ER N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS T E X A R K A N A DIVISION
R O B E R T L. MARSHALL v. SHERIFF DAN MARTIN, Nevada C o u n ty; JAILER RAY MARTIN, N e v a d a County Jail; and WAYNE K E S S E R B U R G , Jail Administrator, N e v a d a County Jail C iv il No. 4:09-cv-04065
R E P O R T AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Plaintiff, Robert L. Marshall (hereinafter Marshall), 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, Marshall was incarcerated in the Nevada County Jail in Prescott, Arkansas. On July 13, 2009, he provided the Court with a notice of change of address to an address in Little Rock, Arkansas (Doc. 4). He then notified the Court he had been moved to the Caddo Correctional Center in Shreveport, Louisiana (Doc. 7). Although the case was filed on June 22nd (Doc. 1), it was not until September 17, 2009, that Marshall finally provided the Court with a completed in forma pauperis application (Doc. 9). On October 6, 2009, mail sent to Marshall by the Court to the Caddo Correctional Center was returned by the United States Postal Service marked: "Undeliverable as Addressed" and
"Undeliverable as Addressed--Gone." On November 24, 2009, mail sent to Marshall by the Court
to the Caddo Correctional Center was returned by the United States Postal Service marked: "Undeliverable as Addressed--Gone." The Court has not had a valid address on Marshall since October. I therefore recommend that this case be dismissed based on Marshall'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).
T he 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?