Opinion
21-cv-1957 (ECT/DTS)
12-17-2021
Hicks, Plaintiff, v. Daniel Isaac Smith, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DAVID T. SCHULTZ U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Hicks filed this action on August 31, 2021, along with a Motion for Agency Stay, which this Court construes as a request for Writ of Prohibition. Approximately two weeks later Hicks filed an Amended Complaint and requested summons. On September 22, 2021, the Clerk's Office issued the requested summons and mailed them to Hicks at the address provided by him in his initiating documents. The mail was returned as undeliverable and marked “undeliverable as addressed” by the U.S. Postal Service.
On October 19, 2021, Hicks called the Clerk's Office and the Court verified the address the Court was using was correct. Another copy of the summons was mailed that day. On November 2, 2021, the mail was again returned with the mark “undeliverable as addressed.” It has been two months since Hicks last contacted the Court and because plaintiff provided only “Hicks” as a name with no more information and the U.S. Postal Service is not recognizing the name Hicks and/or the address he provided, it is not possible to contact plaintiff regarding this case.
Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS that: This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.