Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03058/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03058-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

MARK EDWARD LILEY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-3058

SGT. M. LOTT; LT. BETH REELY;

ROBERT JOHNSON; TIM SMITH;

DAVID DEATHERAGE; and BOBBY

SMITH DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Mark Edward Liley filed this civil rights action on September 15, 2006. He proceeds pro

se and in forma pauperis. 

When he filed the action, plaintiff was incarcerated at the Carroll County Detention

Center (Doc. 1). Plaintiff notified the court on November 13, 2006 of a change of address.

However, on December 29, 2006, mail was returned as “undeliverable” when sent to the new

address. Plaintiff has not further notified the court of a change in address. According to

information available on the Arkansas JusticeXchange website, www.justicexchange.com,

Plaintiff’s current custody status is unknown. 

On March 25, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and brief in support (Doc. 18

and 19). In their motion and brief, Defendants indicate Plaintiff has failed to respond to

discovery requests. Defendants indicate they have been unable to correspond with the Plaintiff

regarding his past due discovery responses because all mail sent to the Plaintiff at the address

entered as a change of address on November 13, 2006 (Doc. 12) has been returned as

undeliverable. Plaintiff has not communicated with the court in anyway. 

Case 3:06-cv-03058-JLH Document 21 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

I therefore recommend that this case be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to obey the

orders of the court and his failure to prosecute this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. The parties have

ten 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.

DATED this 1st day of June 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03058-JLH Document 21 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>