Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lee v. Jones, 1:17-CV-122-JM-BD. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20180206921 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2018
Summary: RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION BETH DEERE , Magistrate Judge . I. Procedures for Filing Objections : This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge James M. Moody Jr. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. All objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation. If no objections are file
More

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedures for Filing Objections:

This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge James M. Moody Jr. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. All objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation.

If no objections are filed, Judge Moody can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, parties may waive your right to appeal.

II. Discussion:

Plaintiff Joseph Raymond Lee filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer, while he was being held in the Izard County Jail. (Docket entry #1) Because he is not represented by counsel, court rules require Mr. Lee to keep the court informed as to his current address. See Local Rule 5.5. Mr. Lee was informed of this obligation in a December 6, 2017 Order. (#3)

Mail sent to Mr. Lee from the Court was returned as "undeliverable" on December 13, 2017. (#5) In a December 15, 2017 Order, Mr. Lee was directed to notify the court of his new address within 30 days. (#6) The Court specifically cautioned Mr. Lee that his claims could be dismissed if he failed to comply with the Order. (#6)

Since that time, other mail sent to Mr. Lee from the court has also been returned as "undeliverable." (#12, #13) To date, however, Mr. Lee has failed to comply with the Court's Order.

III. Conclusion:

The Court recommends that Mr. Lee's claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to comply with the Court's December 15, 2017 Order and failure to prosecute this lawsuit.

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