Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_19-cv-00079/USCOURTS-ared-1_19-cv-00079-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

BATESVILLE DIVISION

BLAKE A. MARTIN PLAINTIFF 

V. CASE NO. 1:19-CV-79-LPR-BD

ALBERT ROOKE, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections

This Recommendation for dismissal has been sent to Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. Any 

party may file written objections with the Clerk of Court if they disagree with the 

findings or conclusions set out in the Recommendation. Objections should be specific 

and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. 

To be considered, objections must be filed within 14 days. Parties who do not file 

objections risk waiving their right to appeal questions of fact. And, if no objections are 

filed, Judge Rudofsky can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing 

the record. 

II. Discussion 

Blake Martin filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer,

complaining about the conditions of his confinement while detained in the Fulton County 

jail. (Docket entries #2, #8) In January 2020, after Mr. Martin was released from custody, 

he notified the Court of his new address. (#25) 

Meanwhile, however, on December 20, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants’ 

motion to compel Mr. Martin to respond to their discovery requests. (#21) In the 

Case 1:19-cv-00079-LPR Document 27 Filed 02/03/20 Page 1 of 2
2

December 20 Order, the Court ordered Mr. Martin to file his responses to the Defendants’ 

discovery requests within 30 days. (#21) 

After Mr. Martin notified the Court of his new address, he was given an additional 

14 days to file his discovery responses. (#26) The Court cautioned him that his failure to 

file responses, as ordered, would likely result in the dismissal of his claims, without 

prejudice. Local Rule 5.5(c). To date, Mr. Martin has not filed discovery responses, and

the extended deadline has passed. 

III. Conclusion

The Court recommends that Mr. Martin’s claims be DISMISSED, without 

prejudice, based on his failure to comply with this Court’s January 17, 2020 Order and 

his failure to prosecute this lawsuit.

DATED this 3rd day of February, 2020.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00079-LPR Document 27 Filed 02/03/20 Page 2 of 2