Opinion
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-278-BSM-BD
08-09-2018
BRUNSON ROBERTS, ADC # 070864 PLAINTIFF v. WHITWORTH, et al. DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION I. Procedure for Filing Objections:
This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Chief Judge Brian S. Miller. Mr. Roberts may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation.
If no objections are filed, Judge Miller can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, Mr. Roberts may waive any right to appeal questions of fact. II. Discussion:
Brunson Roberts, a former inmate at the Pulaski County Detention Facility ("Detention Facility"), filed this lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #1) In his original complaint, Mr. Brunson claimed that Detention Facility officials acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; used excessive force against him; denied him access to the grievance procedure; and denied him access to the courts. He named nine individuals as Defendants.
The Court explained to Mr. Roberts that he could not include multiple, unrelated claims in one lawsuit due to the risk of confusion and unfair prejudice. Mr. Roberts was advised to file an amended complaint, electing which related claims he wished to pursue and clarifying those claims. (#5) In response, Mr. Roberts filed his amended complaint. (#7)
In his amended complaint, Mr. Roberts alleged that Defendants retaliated against him, used excessive force against him, violated his due process rights, and acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Again, the Court explained that Mr. Roberts could not include multiple, unrelated claims in one lawsuit
Rather than recommending that the complaint and the amended complaint be dismissed, the Court gave Mr. Roberts one more opportunity to amend his complaint to choose the related claims he wished to include in this lawsuit. (#11) The Court specifically cautioned Mr. Roberts that if he failed to elect which related claims to pursue in this lawsuit, the Court would recommend that his claims be dismissed, without prejudice, based on a failure to comply with the Court's orders. Mr. Roberts was ordered to file his second amended complaint within thirty days.
On June 5, 2018, Mr. Roberts moved for additional time to file his second amended complaint, which the Court granted. (#14, #15) The Court provided Mr. Roberts until July 31, 2018, to file his second amended complaint. To date, Mr. Roberts has not filed his second amended complaint, and the time for doing so has passed. III. Conclusion:
The Court recommends that Mr. Roberts's claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to comply with the Court's May 30, 2018, and June 8, 2018 Orders, and his failure to prosecute this lawsuit.
DATED, this 9th day of August, 2018.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE