PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. Any party may serve and file written objections to this 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 recommendations. 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 new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (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 new hearing 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 new hearing.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:

DISPOSITION

I. ANALYSIS

On April 11, 2011, Mr. Bowers filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. No. 2) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights, and an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Application). (Doc. No. 1). By Order entered April 19, 2011, Plaintiff's Application was granted (Doc. No. 3) and he was informed of his duty to comply with Local Rule of the Court 5.5(c)(2)1. (Doc. No. 3 at 2-3).

Thereafter, on November 7, 2011, this Court submitted a Partial Report and Recommendations to United States District Court Judge D. P. Marshall Jr., recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff's due process claim, claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities, and Defendant John Maples, Jr. (Doc. No. 5). On January 23, 2012, Judge Marshall entered an Order (Doc. No. 15) adopting the Partial Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 15) and the Clerk of the Court mailed a copy of the Order to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 16).

On January 24, 2012, a Scheduling Order directed the parties to complete discovery on or before July 24, 2012, and to file any dispositive motions on or before August 24, 2012. (Doc. No. 17). A copy of the Scheduling Order was mailed to Plaintiff that day. (Doc. No. 18). These mailings were both returned as undeliverable on February 8, 2012. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20). A search of the Arkansas Department of Correction website reveals Mr. Bowers is no longer in custody.

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) requires a pro se plaintiff to "promptly" notify the Clerk of any change in his or her address. Pro se litigants are required to follow the same rules of procedure, including the local court rules, that govern other litigants. See Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992); Jarzynka v. St. Thomas Univ. of Law, 310 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2004). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules of the Court and it is recommended that his Complaint (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice.

II. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 2) should be DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. The Court should certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order adopting these recommendation and an accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.