Opinion
2:21-cv-00170-KGB-JJV
09-12-2022
KERI DORCELL TIMMONS ADC #146308 PLAINTIFF v. DEAN MANNIS, Sheriff; and PATRICIA SNYDER, Jail Administrator, Arkansas County Detention Center DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
JOE J. VOLPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. Any party may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections should be specific and 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 (14) days from the date of this Recommendation. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
I. DISCUSSION
Keri Dorcell Timmons (“Plaintiff”) has filed a pro se Complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2.) In December 2021, I granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), advised him of his obligation under Local Rule 5.5 to maintain a valid address with the Clerk, and cautioned him I would recommend dismissal if he failed to do so. (Doc. 3.) In February 2022, Plaintiff properly updated his mailing address when he was transferred from the Arkansas County Detention Center to the East Arkansas Regional Unit (“EARU”). (Docs. 8, 9.)
However, in July 2022 mail sent to the Plaintiff at the EARU was returned undelivered because he had been paroled without providing the Clerk with an updated address. (Doc. 21.) Accordingly, on August 2, 2022, I ordered Plaintiff to update his address and file a new IFP Application. (Doc. 22.) And I warned Plaintiff his case could be dismissed if he failed to do so within thirty days. (Id.) The time to comply with that Order has expired, and Plaintiff has not done so. Because the Clerk does not have a valid service address for Plaintiff, it would be futile to grant him an extension of time to comply with my instructions. For these reasons, I recommend this case be dismissed without prejudice due to a lack of prosecution. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
II. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:
1. The Complaint (Doc. 2) be DISMISSED without prejudice due to a lack of prosecution, and this case be CLOSED.
2. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order adopting this Recommendation and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.