ADAMS v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR/OSHA, 11-3043. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20140908703
Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Chief Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff, Dale B. Adams, filed this case under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. 1 He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. On November 15, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 61). Under Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, Plaintiff had fourteen days from the date of service
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Chief Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff, Dale B. Adams, filed this case under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. 1 He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. On November 15, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 61). Under Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, Plaintiff had fourteen days from the date of service ..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Dale B. Adams, filed this case under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 et seq.1 He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
On November 15, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 61). Under Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, Plaintiff had fourteen days from the date of service to respond. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. He has not communicated to the Court in anyway.
I therefore recommend that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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.
FootNotes
1. Adams originally also asserted a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. However, this claim was dismissed on January 25, 2012 (Doc. 37).
Source: Leagle
