Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05016/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05016-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tim Helder
Defendant
Ricky Wayne Howell
Plaintiff
Whittington
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

RICKY WAYNE HOWELL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5016

 

SGT. WHITTINGTON; and

SHERIFF TIM HELDER DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This civil rights action was filed on January 30, 2006. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma

pauperis.

When he filed this action, the plaintiff was incarcerated at the Washington County Detention

Center. He was subsequently released. On June 19, 2006, in an order denying a motion for access

to law books, the court noted that he was no longer incarcerated. 

On November 1, 2006 (Doc. 20), the defendants filed a motion to compel. In their motion,

they noted they propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents to the plaintiff

on August 16, 2006. Defendants stated they had not received plaintiff’s responses or any

communication from the plaintiff regarding his responses. The motion to compel was granted by

order entered on November 13, 2006 (Doc. 22).

On November 14, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 24). In their motion,

defendants state they have been unable to effect service of the past-due discovery requests to the

plaintiff and all correspondence they have sent to him has been returned with the notation: “Return

to Sender. Unable to Forward. No Forward Order on File.” 

On November 15, 2006, mail was returned to the court as undeliverable. This mail included

an order entered by the court on October 18, 2006 (Doc. 19).

Howell has not communicated with the court or defendants’ counsel. No other address

for the plaintiff appears in the file. 

Case 5:06-cv-05016-JLH Document 27 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

I therefore recommend that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. The complaint

should be dismissed on the grounds plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action and obey the rules

of the court requiring him to keep the court informed of his address. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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 16th day of November 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05016-JLH Document 27 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>