Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00519/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00519-0/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

LITTLE ROCK DIVISION

QUINCY HAMILTON, BRYANT D. FARMER

& PATRICK TAYLOR PLAINTIFFS

V. 4:06CV00519 JLH/HDY

BOBBY BROWN DEFENDANT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

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

J. Leon Holmes. 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 

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

hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 4:06-cv-00519-JLH Document 48 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 3
1

Although that order was sent to Plaintiff at the address he provided, it was returned (docket

entry #41). Previously returned mail had a notation indication that Plaintiff was no longer at the

Faulkner County Jail (docket entry #34).

2

 

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

Plaintiffs initiated this 42 U.S.C § 1983 action by filing a complaint (docket entry #2) on May

2, 2006. Plaintiffs Bryant D. Farmer and Patrick Taylor were dismissed by order entered July 14,

2006 (docket entry #22), leaving only Plaintiff Hamilton as a Plaintiff. On December 7, 2006,

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that he had been unable to serve Plaintiff with his

answer or interrogatories (docket entry #38).

On December 21, 2006, this Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to provide, within 11

days, an address at which he could be served with Defendant’s answer and interrogatories (docket

entry #42). Plaintiff was warned that his failure to provide the address would result in the

recommended dismissal of his complaint.1

 More than 30 days has now passed, and Plaintiff has not

responded to that order. 

Case 4:06-cv-00519-JLH Document 48 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that this case should be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). 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 of discretion.”)

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint (docket entry #2) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for

failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).

2. All pending motions be denied as moot.

3. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment

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

DATED this ___25__ day of January, 2007.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-00519-JLH Document 48 Filed 01/25/07 Page 3 of 3