McMannis v. Benton County Jail et al

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by David Aurther McMannis. Objections to R&R due by 11/10/2008. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on October 22, 2008. (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

D A V ID ARTHUR McMANNIS v. C iv il No. 08-5221

PLAINTIFF

BENTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; JE R R E M E REECE, Inmate, Benton County D e ten tio n Center; CAPTAIN HUNTER P E T R A Y , Commander of the Jail, Benton County D e ten tio n Center; and GUARD MONROE, B e nto n County Detention Center

DEFENDANTS

R E P O R T AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE D avid Arthur McMannis submitted this pro se action for filing on October 7, 2008, under th e provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He did not submit with his complaint a completed in forma p a u p eris (IFP) application. For this reason, an order was entered (Doc. 2) giving him until N o v em b er 3, 2008, to complete, sign, and return an IFP application. McMannis returned the IFP application with a notation on it that this case and case number 08 -52 24 were identical. He also submitted a cover letter asking which case number was the correct nu m ber and noting that he only had one case. Case 08-5224 was filed on October 9, 2008 under th e provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A review of the complaint shows it is identical to the complaint filed in case 08-5221. The complaint was merely received by the court on a different day and acco m p an ied by a completed IFP application. The IFP application was granted and a case opened. T h ere was no reference to the earlier complaint or the court's order entered in 08-5221. H o w e v er, as the two cases are identical, I recommend that civil case 08-5221 be dismissed. T h e court has already granted McMannis IFP status in 08-5224 and entered the order directing the

-1-

AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

cle rk to collect the filing fee pursuant to the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

McMannis has 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. McMannis is reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.
D A T E D this 22nd day of October 2008. /s/

J. Marschewski

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

AO72A (Rev. 8/82)