Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00155/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00155-1/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

LITTLE ROCK DIVISION

ROBERT L. SMITH PLAINTIFF

V. NO: 4:15CV00155 JLH/JWC

DOES et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United StatesDistrictJudge J. Leon

Holmes. Anypartymayserve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should

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

Mail your objections to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff Robert L. Smith, who was formerlyheld at the CraigheadCountyDetention Facility,

filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on March 16, 2015. On March 19, 2015, the

Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing and administrative fees, or to file

and application for leave to proceed in forma papueris (docket entry #3). That same order warned

Plaintiff that his failure to comply within 30 days would result in the recommended dismissal of his

1

Case 4:15-cv-00155-JLH Document 6 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 2
complaint. More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, filed an

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise responded to the order. Mail sent

to Plaintiff’s address of record has been returned as undeliverable (docket entries #4 & #5). Under

these circumstances, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and failure

respond to the Court’s order. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts

have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power

is reviewed for abuse of discretion). 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to pay the

filing fee, failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and failure to respond to the Court’s order.

2. The Court certifythat an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment

dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith.

DATED this 24th

 day of April, 2015.

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 4:15-cv-00155-JLH Document 6 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 2