Opinion
4:21-cv-00063-LPR-JJV
06-02-2021
JOHNNY A. MITCHELL ADC #153261 PLAINTIFF v. TURN KEY HEALTH SERVICES, et al. DEFENDANTS
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOE J. VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. 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. Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen days from the date of the findings and recommendations. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
Mail your objections to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
DISPOSITION
Johnny A. Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on January 25, 2021, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. No. 1.) On April 27, 2021, mail sent from the Court to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned as undeliverable with the notation “Return to Sender No Longer Here” on the envelope. (Doc. No. 11.) That same day, I reminded Plaintiff of his duty under Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) to promptly notify the Clerk of the Court and other parties of any change in his address. (Doc. No. 12.) I also directed Plaintiff to update his address with the Court within thirty days, or risk having his case dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) The Clerk mailed a copy of the April 27 Order to Plaintiff, but the envelope was returned with the notation “RETURN TO SENDER no longer here.” (Doc. No. 16.) Other mail from the Court likewise has been returned as undeliverable. (Doc. No. 13.)
More than thirty days have passed from the entry of my April 27, 2021 Order. Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Order. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the April 27 Order could result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 7) be DISMISSED without prejudice, and that the Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this recommendation and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.