Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02022/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02022-4/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)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

LATRIVIA EVETTE HARRIS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2022

SGT. CROUCH; DEPUTY

PATE; and DEPUTY HALSEY D EFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She proceeds pro

se and in forma pauperis.

On August 3, 2007, the undersigned issued a report and recommendation (Doc. 29) on

defendants’ summary judgment motion. On August 13, 2007, the copy of the report and

recommendation sent to the plaintiff at the McPherson Unit of the Arkansas Department of

Correction (ADC) was returned to the court as undeliverable with a notation she had been

“paroled.”

On August 30, 2007, the report and recommendation was adopted by United States District

Judge Jimm Larry Hendren (Doc. 31). The copy of the order mailed to the plaintiff at the ADC was

returned to the court as undeliverable with a notation she had been “paroled.” 

Plaintiff has not provided the court with a change of address. Court staff contacted the

Arkansas Department of Community Correction, Office of Probation and Parole, in an effort to

obtain an address for the plaintiff. Court staff were advised that plaintiff was released from the

ADC but was not on parole. Instead, court staff were informed plaintiff had served her sentence.

Case 2:06-cv-02022-JLH Document 32 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Court staff were advised that the release facility, the McPherson Unit, might possibly have

a release address for the plaintiff. In an effort to obtain an address, court staff contacted the

McPherson Unit and spoke with the Records Office at the McPherson Unit. The Records Office

indicated plaintiff was released on May 10, 2007, and did not have provide the Records Office with

a release address. Court staff was advised the mail room at the Unit may have had a forwarding

address but that forwarding addresses were only kept for a ninety day period and were then

disposed of. 

To date, plaintiff has not communicated with the court. When she filed the lawsuit, plaintiff

was advised of the rules of the court requiring her to keep the court informed of her current address.

I therefore recommend that this case be dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to keep

the court informed of her address and her failure to prosecute this action.

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 24th day of September 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02022-JLH Document 32 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>