Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05096/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05096-0/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

RANDALL R. NEELON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5096

TIM HELDER, Sheriff of

Washington County, Arkansas DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Randall R. Neelon filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 6,

2005. On February 6, 2006, the defendant moved for summary judgment. (Docs. 19-21.) On

June 5, 2006, the court ordered (Doc. 22) Neelon to complete, sign, date, and return an attached

court-prepared response to the summary judgment motion by June 28, 2006. This order was

mailed to the address on record but was returned to the court as undeliverable. Despite court

staff’s diligent efforts, a current address for plaintiff has not been located. 

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides in 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. A party appearing for himself/herself shall sign

his/her pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and telephone number. If

any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within

thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. (Emphasis added.)

The court’s order directing Neelon to complete, sign, date, and return a response to the

summary judgment motion was returned as undeliverable. Neelon has not communicated with

the court, and the court has been unable to locate a current address for Neelon. Further, Neelon

has not responded to the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Case 5:05-cv-05096-JLH Document 24 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

I therefore recommend that Neelon’s action be dismissed without prejudice on the

grounds that he has failed to diligently keep the court informed of his address and thus failed to

prosecute this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

The parties have ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

written 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 6th day of July 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones

_________________________________________

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05096-JLH Document 24 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>