Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05021/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05021-1/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

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

CHAD MICHAEL WIESS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5021

 

CAPTAIN PETRAY;

LT. CARTER; SGT.

FAULKENBERRY; and

SGT. ADAMS all of the

Benton County Detention Center DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Chad Michael Wiess filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

February 6, 2006. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). When he filed the

complaint, he was incarcerated at the Benton County Detention Center (BCDC).

On March 15th and March 17th, mail sent to Wiess at the BCDC was returned as

undeliverable. On March 20, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 18). In their

motion, defendants state they have been unable to effect service of interrogatories and requests

for production on the plaintiff. They indicate all mail they have sent to him has been returned

as undeliverable. Defendants move to dismiss this case pursuant to the provisions of Rule

5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas on the grounds

the plaintiff has failed to keep the court and the defendants apprised of his current address. 

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) providesin part as follows: “Parties appearing pro se. It is the duty

of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the

proceedings of any change in his or her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to

prosecute or defend the action diligently.” 

Case 5:06-cv-05021-JLH Document 21 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 Wiess has not communicated with the court and no other address for the plaintiff appears

in the file. I therefore recommend that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and Wiess’

claims be dismissed on the grounds he has failed to prosecute this action and obey the rules of

the court requiring him to keep the court informed of his address. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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 27th day of March of 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:06-cv-05021-JLH Document 21 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>