Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_07-cv-00080/USCOURTS-ared-2_07-cv-00080-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HELENA DIVISION

TYRONE B. HILL PLAINTIFF

Reg. #71015-004

V. 2:07CV00080 SWW/JFF

LINDA SANDERS et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court Judge

Susan Webber Wright. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation.

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

objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your

objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United

States District Court Clerk no later than eleven (11) days from the date of the findings and

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District 

Case 2:07-cv-00080-SWW Document 48 Filed 02/11/08 Page 1 of 4
2

Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the 

hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the

hearing before the District Judge in the form of an offer of

proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or

other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at

the hearing before the District Judge.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary

hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff filed this cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) on June 15, 2007 (docket entry

#2). Plaintiff remains in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and is currently held at the

Federal Correctional Institution in Big Spring, Texas. In forma pauperis status was granted to

Plaintiff and service ordered on Defendants. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff was

at the FCI in Big Spring, but on September 25, 2007, he notified the Court that he was being moved

to the Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida until approximately October 15, 2007 (docket

entry #17).

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (docket entry #21) on November 13, 2007, arguing that

the service on the Defendants was insufficient, that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over

Defendant Maldonado, that the Defendants were entitled to immunity from the claims raised against

Case 2:07-cv-00080-SWW Document 48 Filed 02/11/08 Page 2 of 4
3

them, and that the Complaint failed to state a claim against them.

The Court, being responsible for the execution of service on the parties in this action,

directed that the Clerk of the Court again prepare summonses for the Defendants, and it appears that

the named Defendants have all been properly served at this time. However, the Court also, on

November 15, 2007, directed that Plaintiff file a Response to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,

within thirty (30) days of the entry date of that Order. Plaintiff was also cautioned of his

responsibilities under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), which provides that if any communication from the

Court to a pro se litigant is not responded to within thirty days, the case may be dismissed without

prejudice. See docket entry # 23.

Plaintiff did not file a Response to that Motion within thirty days, but, on January 8, 2008,

he did file a Notice of Change of Address that notified the Court that he had been returned to Big

Spring, Texas (docket entry #38). In an abundance of caution, the Court mailed to Plaintiff at the

Big Spring facility another copy of the pending Motion and the Brief in Support and granted him

an additional fifteen days in which to file his Response. Again, Plaintiff was cautioned of the

requirements of Rule 5.5(c)(2). 

None of the mail addressed to Plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable, suggesting that

he has received the Orders and other pleadings and documents, but Plaintiff has failed to file any

Response to the pending Motion to Dismiss despite the many extensions that the Court has sua

sponte granted to him. Under these circumstances, the undersigned recommends that this case be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to prosecute.

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 we review the exercise of this power for abuse

Case 2:07-cv-00080-SWW Document 48 Filed 02/11/08 Page 3 of 4
4

of discretion.”)

CONCLUSION

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s cause of action be dismissed without

prejudice, and all pending motions be DENIED AS MOOT.

. DATED this 11th day of February, 2008.

 ______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00080-SWW Document 48 Filed 02/11/08 Page 4 of 4