Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05145/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benton County Detention Center
Defendant
Benton County Sheriff
Defendant
Davie Lee Johnson
Plaintiff
Linseybee
Defendant
Paul
Defendant
Piercy
Defendant
Tomlin
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

DAVIE LEE JOHNSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5145

 

BENTON COUNTY DETENTION

CENTER; OFFICER TOMLIN;

OFFICER PAUL; OFFICER PIERCY;

BENTON COUNTY SHERIFF; and

OFFICER LINSEYBEE DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Davie Lee Johnson filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

August 22, 2005. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

When he filed the lawsuit, he was incarcerated at the Benton County Detention Center.

On August 29, 2005, mail sent to the plaintiff at the Benton County Detention Center was

returned to the court as undeliverable. This mail included the file marked copy of the complaint

and in IFP application as well as the court’s order granting plaintiff leave to proceed IFP.

The court verified that plaintiff had been released from the Benton County Detention

Center. Plaintiff provided an address upon being booked in. The court on August 30, 2005,

entered a change of address on the plaintiff’s behalf (Doc. 6) utilizing this address. The court

directed the clerk to re-mail to the plaintiff all mail that had been returned as undeliverable.

On September 6, 2005, all mail sent by the court to the new address was returned as

undeliverable. Plaintiff has not communicated with the court and no other address for the

plaintiff appears in the file.

Case 5:05-cv-05145-JLH-BSJ Document 8 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

I therefore recommend Johnson’s claims be dismissed on the grounds he 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). Johnson has 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.

Johnson is reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo

review by the district court.

DATED this 9th day of September 2005.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05145-JLH-BSJ Document 8 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>