Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BARROWS v. HELDER, 13-5175. (2014)

Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20130314a39 Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff filed this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. When he filed the case, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center. On November 22, 2013, mail was returned to the Court with a notation that Plaintiff was no longer at the detention center. On December 11, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 14). On Decemb
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff filed this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

When he filed the case, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center. On November 22, 2013, mail was returned to the Court with a notation that Plaintiff was no longer at the detention center.

On December 11, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 14). On December 12, 2013, and January 6, 2014, mail was returned to the Court as undeliverable. On January 6, 2014, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) on the grounds that the Plaintiff had not complied with Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas which requires an unrepresented party to keep the Court informed of his address at all times.

The Court has not had a correct address for the Plaintiff since November 2013. Defendants are unable to serve pleadings on the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed a document with the Court since September of 2013.

I therefore recommend that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) be granted and this case dismissed with prejudice based on the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute the action and his failure to keep the Court informed of his current address.

The parties have fourteen (14) 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.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer