Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00235/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00235-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

MICHAEL RAY KING, 

ADC #161847 PLAINTIFF 

v. 5:19-cv-00235-BRW-JJV 

TURNTINE, Nurse; and 

IVERSON, Nurse, 

Dub Brassell Detention Center DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Billy 

Roy Wilson. 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 a 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 new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or 

Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following: 

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) 

was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 5:19-cv-00235-BRW Document 44 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 AStatement of Necessity@ to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

 DISPOSITION 

Michael Ray King (“Plaintiff”) has filed a pro se Amended Complaint, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his constitutional rights at the Dub Brassell Detention 

Center (“DBDC”). (Doc. Nos. 5, 9.) In November 2019, mail sent to Plaintiff at the DBDC was 

returned undelivered because he was no longer held in that facility and failed to provide the Court 

with an updated mailing address as required by Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). (Doc. Nos. 35, 38, 39, 40.) 

Importantly, Plaintiff had previously received an Order explaining his obligations under Local 

Rule 5.5(c)(2) and the consequences of failing to do so. (Doc. No. 3.) Also, it was unclear 

whether Plaintiff had been released from custody, and if so, whether he was still entitled to proceed 

in forma pauperis. 

For these reasons, I entered an Order on December 3, 2019, giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days 

to provide a current mailing address and file a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, if 

necessary. (Doc. No. 41). I provided Plaintiff with the necessary forms and cautioned him I 

would recommend dismissal if he did not timely comply with my instructions. (Id.) Plaintiff’s 

time to comply with my Order has expired. Without a current address, it would be futile to give 

Case 5:19-cv-00235-BRW Document 44 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 3
3 

him an extension of time to comply with my instructions. Thus, this case should be dismissed 

without prejudice due to a lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). 

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. The case be DISMISSED without prejudice due to a lack of prosecution. 

2. The Court should certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3), that an in forma 

pauperis appeal from an Order adopting this recommendation and the accompanying Judgment 

would not be taken in good faith. 

DATED this 6th day of January 2020. 

 

JOE J. VOLPE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:19-cv-00235-BRW Document 44 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3