Conn v. Washington County Detention Center et al
Filing
47
ORDER ADOPTING 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismissing case without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on September 18, 2012. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL LEE CONN
v.
PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 11-5268
DR. MICHAEL HOWARD;
SHERIFF TIM HELDER; and
NURSE RHONDA BRADLEY
DEFENDANTS
O R D E R
Now on this 18th day of September, 2012, comes on for
consideration the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (document #44) and plaintiff's objection thereto. The Court,
being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows:
1.
On January 30, 2012, the Court scheduled an evidentiary
hearing to be held on September 5, 2012. In the Scheduling Order
(document #19), the Court directed the parties to file a prehearing information sheet within thirty days of the hearing.
2.
Plaintiff failed to file the pre-hearing information
sheet as ordered, and on August 13, 2012, the Court entered a Show
Cause Order (document #40) allowing plaintiff until August 22,
2012, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
failure to follow the orders of the Court.
3.
On August 20, 2012, mail sent to plaintiff -- including
the Show Cause Order -- was returned marked "paroled." Having no
valid address for plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Erin L. Setser
recommended that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute
and failure to obey the orders of the Court. The Report and
Recommendation was returned marked "paroled" on August 31, 2012.
4.
The
docket
reflects
that,
on
September
5,
2012,
plaintiff contacted the Court by telephone and provided a new
address. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was re-sent to
plaintiff at the address he provided.
5.
On September 11, 2012, plaintiff filed his objection to
the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff states that he was
released from prison on July 18, 2012, at which time he was
paroled to a transitional housing unit, where he stayed for one
week. Plaintiff then returned to northwest Arkansas, where he "had
a hard time getting a mailing address." Plaintiff states that he
could not afford a stamp and envelope at that time. He further
states that he had been advised to contact defendants' attorney,
rather than the Court Clerk, to report a change of address and
that he did so by telephone within two weeks of his dismissal from
transitional housing. According to plaintiff, defendants' attorney
told him that he needed to notify the Court of his change of
address. Plaintiff states that he did so "as soon as he was able."
6.
As a pro se litigant, it is plaintiff's duty to promptly
notify the Clerk and other parties of any change in his address,
to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute the action
diligently. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Here, plaintiff failed to do so.
Although plaintiff contends he could not afford a stamp and
-2-
envelope in order to contact the Court by mail, he has offered no
explanation as to why he did not contact the Court by telephone
until September 5, a full seven weeks after his release from
prison. To the extent he contends he lacked access to a telephone,
this is implausible considering plaintiff admittedly contacted
defendants' counsel by phone within two weeks of his dismissal
from transitional housing.
7.
Furthermore, plaintiff has never filed a pre-hearing
information sheet, as ordered by the Court, and has offered no
explanation for why his failure to follow Court orders should not
result in dismissal of the case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge (document #44) is hereby adopted in toto, and
plaintiff's objection thereto is overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the orders
of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
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?