McReynolds v. Glenn et al

Filing 78

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 71 ; Christopher Wattingny (Doctor, Wadley Medical Center) dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on October 19, 2017. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

BOBBY FRANKLIN MCREYNOLDS
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:16-cv-4122

PRESTON GLENN, Jail Administrator,
Nevada County Jail; CHRISTOPHER
WATTINGNY, Doctor, Wadley Medical
Center; WHATTLEY MEDICAL CENTER;
DR. ELKINS, Nevada County Jail; and
SHERIFF DANNY MARTIN, Nevada
County Jail

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed June 22, 2017, by the Honorable
Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No.
71. Judge Bryant recommends that all claims against Separate Defendant Christopher Wattingny
be dismissed. Plaintiff has responded with objections. ECF No. 73. The Court finds the matter
ripe for consideration.
On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed his complaint in this matter pro se. The United States
Marshal Service made two unsuccessful attempts to serve Separate Defendant Christopher
Wattingny at Nevada County Jail and Wadley Medical Center in Hope, Arkansas. On February
21, 2017, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause as to why his case against
Wattingny should not be dismissed for failure to provide the Court with an accurate address for
service. Plaintiff eventually provided an address for service at UAMS Southwest in Texarkana,
Arkansas. UAMS Southwest accepted service for Wattingny but then notified the Court that
summons was accepted in error because Wattingny was no longer associated with UAMS

Southwest. To date, the United States Marshal Service has been unable to locate and serve
Wattingny, and Plaintiff has not provided an accurate address for service.
In his objections, Plaintiff does not provide an accurate address for service for Wattingny
but instead provides a “last known phone [number]” for Wattingny. ECF No. 73, p. 2. Plaintiff
states that this is the only information he has regarding Wattingny. However, it is Plaintiff’s
responsibility to provide the Court with a proper address for service. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991
F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). The time for serving Wattingny has passed, and Plaintiff has not
shown good cause for his failure to provide an accurate address for service. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m).
Based on its own de novo review, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and adopts the
Report and Recommendation in toto. ECF No. 71. Accordingly, all claims against Separate
Defendant Christopher Wattingny are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of October, 2017.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

-2-