Carroll et al v. Fentress Co Sheriff Depart. et al

Filing 162

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that pltf Joshua Lee Carroll's complaint be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to keep the Clerk informed of his current address. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 4/2/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(rd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOSHUA LEE CARROLL and WILLIAM
CARTER KING,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LAUREL WASIK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 2:11-0019
Judge Sharp/Bryant
Jury Demand

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Laurel Wasik has filed her motion to dismiss
the claims of plaintiff Joshua Lee Carroll on grounds of failure to
prosecute and failure to notify the Court of this plaintiff’s
current address (Docket Entry No. 118).
filed no response in opposition.

Plaintiff Carroll has

Moreover, the record includes

numerous mailings to plaintiff Carroll that have been returned by
the Post Office marked “not deliverable as addressed – unable to
forward.”
Both plaintiffs were forewarned by the Court that their
failure to keep the Clerk’s Office informed of their current
address would jeopardize their prosecution of this action (Docket
Entry No. 4 at 2-3). Despite this admonition, it appears from this
record that plaintiff Carroll has failed to inform the Clerk of his
current address and has otherwise failed to prosecute this action.
For the foregoing reason, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge finds that plaintiff Carroll’s complaint should be dismissed
for failure to prosecute and for failure to keep the Clerk informed
of his current address.

RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS
that plaintiff Carroll’s complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
any party has fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and
Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation, with the District Court.

Any party opposing said

objections shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of any
objections filed in this Report in which to file any responses to
said objections.

Failure to file specific objections within

fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can
constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111
(1986).
ENTERED this 2nd day of April 2013.
s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

2