Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_16-cv-02037/USCOURTS-arwd-2_16-cv-02037-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

AARON FLEMONS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:16-CV-02037

JOHN DEVANE, et. al. DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, Chief

United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a

Report and Recommendation.

Currently before the Court is the issue of service related to the following Defendants: Shift 

Supervisor Steele, Deputy Hobbs, Deputy Woods, L.P.N. S. Overstreet, Deputy Bunn, Deputy 

Fuller, and Deputy Lindberg. After careful consideration, I make the following Report and 

Recommendation.

Service for these Defendants was returned unexecuted. On October 2, 2017, the Court 

entered an Order directing Plaintiff to provide the Court with sufficient information to identify and 

serve these Defendants by October 20, 2017. (ECF No. 47). It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to 

provide the Court with an address for proper service on Defendants. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 

F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any additional addresses 

or identifying information to use in serving these Defendants. 

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend Shift Supervisor Steele, Deputy Hobbs, Deputy 

Case 2:16-cv-02037-TLB Document 52 Filed 12/18/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

Woods, L.P.N. S. Overstreet, Deputy Bunn, Deputy Fuller, and Deputy Lindberg be DISMISSED 

from this action without prejudice.

The parties have fourteen 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 18th day of December 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Ford 

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02037-TLB Document 52 Filed 12/18/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>