Hulen v. Jail Nurse et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 18 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) filed by Bradley, Randall Denzer and Susan Johnson. Objections to R&R due by 4/20/2009. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on April 2, 2009. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WE S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FA Y E T T E V ILLE DIVISION
K E N N E T H D. HULEN v. NURSE SUSAN JOHNSON; an d NURSE BRADLEY C iv il No. 08-5004
D E FE N D A N T S
R E P O R T AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. At the time he filed the action, he was incarcerated at the Benton County Detention Center. In September of 2008, all mail sent to the plaintiff at the Benton County Detention Center (BCDC) was been returned as undeliverable. The court learned that plaintiff was released from the BCDC. Plaintiff did not notify the court of his new address. Review of public records databases indicated plaintiff had previously reported an address in Prairie Grove, Arkansas. The
cou rt directed a change of address on his behalf. All mail sent to this address has been returned as u n d e liv e ra b le . Plaintiff has not contacted the court. No other address is available. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) based on the plaintiff's failure to keep the court and opposing counsel info rm ed of his address as is required by Rule 5.5 of the Local Rules of the Eastern and Western D istricts of Arkansas. Defendants have been unable to serve the plaintiff with any discovery req u ests or with their summary judgment motion.
AO72A (Rev. 8/82)
I therefore recommend that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and this case be d ism issed based on the plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and his failure to keep the court an d opposing counsel informed of his address. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 5.5.
The parties have ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which 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. DATED this 2nd day of April 2009.
HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AO72A (Rev. 8/82)
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?