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 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 (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

Bradley D. Tucker ("Plaintiff") is incarcerated at the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction and filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff's unlawful arrest claims against Defendants Hefner, Kimble, and Todd proceeded past screening. (Doc. No. 4.)

On August 30, 2018, United States District Judge D.P. Marshall granted Defendants' motion to compel and directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. (Doc. No. 16.) Judge Marshall warned Plaintiff that if he did not do so, Defendants may move to dismiss his complaint without prejudice. (Id.) On October 8, 2018, Judge Marshall again directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests after plaintiff objected to the requests, in their entirety, as irrelevant. (Doc. No. 18.) After receiving no responses from Plaintiff, Defendants asked the Court to extend the discovery deadline; Judge Marshall granted the motion. (Doc. Nos. 20, 21). Judge Marshall again informed Plaintiff that if he failed to respond to Defendants' discovery requests, the Court would entertain a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 21.) Now pending is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. (Doc. Nos. 24, 25). Plaintiff has not responded and the time for doing so has passed. This matter is now ripe for a decision.

The Court made Plaintiff aware of Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) the day after he filed his Complaint. (Doc. No. 3). Under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), a plaintiff who is proceeding pro se must prosecute the action diligently, respond to communications from the Court within 30 days or risk dismissal of the action, and be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. LOCAL RULE 5.5(c)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it." FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Defendants first propounded their discovery requests to Plaintiff on July 3, 2018—five months ago. (Doc. No. 15-1.) Plaintiff's responses were due 30 days later. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2). The Court twice directed Plaintiff to respond (Doc. Nos. 16, 18) and twice warned him that the Court would entertain a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute if he failed to do so (Doc. Nos. 16, 21). Plaintiff still has not responded. The record supports Defendants' position that dismissal is appropriate for failure to prosecute.

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (Doc. No. 24) be GRANTED.

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

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