Filed: Mar. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2014
Summary: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION H. DAVID YOUNG, Magistrate Judge. INSTRUCTIONS The following findings and recommendation have been sent to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright. Any party may serve and file written objections to these findings and recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An orig
Summary: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION H. DAVID YOUNG, Magistrate Judge. INSTRUCTIONS The following findings and recommendation have been sent to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright. Any party may serve and file written objections to these findings and recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An origi..
More
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
H. DAVID YOUNG, Magistrate Judge.
INSTRUCTIONS
The following findings and recommendation have been sent to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright. Any party may serve and file written objections to these findings and recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the Office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendation. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.
Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
On June 21, 2013, plaintiff Donald Keith Tackett ("Tackett") commenced the case at bar by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). He joined the complaint with an application to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or costs. On June 25, 2013, the undersigned granted his application to proceed without the prepayment of fees or costs. In the same order, the undersigned noted the following: "In the event Tackett desires the assistance of the United States Marshal ("Marshal") in effecting service of process, Tackett shall notify the Marshal. If notified, the Marshal is ordered to serve the appropriate individuals with a summons and copy of the complaint." See Document 3. On October 11, 2013, summonses were issued as to the Social Security Administration, the United States Attorney, and the Attorney General of the United States, and the summonses were returned to counsel for service. When there was no evidence that service of process was perfected during the four months that followed, the undersigned entered an order giving Tackett up to, and including, March 10, 2014, to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). To date, he has not produced any evidence that service of process has been perfected nor has he submitted anything in response to the order to show cause.
The federal courts are vested with the inherent power to police the docket. One consequence flowing from that power is the obligation to dismiss a proceeding when a party has failed to prosecute it.
Tackett has failed to prosecute this proceeding in a timely and diligent manner. A sanction is therefore appropriate. After carefully considering the appropriate sanction, the undersigned recommends that Tackett's complaint be dismissed without prejudice.1
