From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waters v. Munyan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION
Sep 18, 2015
NO: 4:15CV00402 BRW/PSH (E.D. Ark. Sep. 18, 2015)

Opinion

NO: 4:15CV00402 BRW/PSH

09-18-2015

DAVID WAYMON WATERS PLAINTIFF v. MONTE MUNYAN et al DEFENDANTS


PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

INSTRUCTIONS

The following Proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent to United States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff David Waymon Waters, who was formerly held at the Faulkner County Detention Center, filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on July 2, 2015. On August 11, 2015, after mail sent to plaintiff at his address of record was returned as undeliverable, the Court entered an order directing plaintiff to file a notice of his current mailing address within 30 days, and warning him that his failure to do so would result in the recommended dismissal of his complaint (docket entry 12). More than 30 days have passed, and plaintiff has not responded to the order. Plaintiff is not listed as a current inmate on the public websites for the Arkansas Department of Correction or the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and failure to respond to the Court's order. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and failure to respond to the Court's order.

2. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2015.

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Waters v. Munyan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION
Sep 18, 2015
NO: 4:15CV00402 BRW/PSH (E.D. Ark. Sep. 18, 2015)
Case details for

Waters v. Munyan

Case Details

Full title:DAVID WAYMON WATERS PLAINTIFF v. MONTE MUNYAN et al DEFENDANTS

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION

Date published: Sep 18, 2015

Citations

NO: 4:15CV00402 BRW/PSH (E.D. Ark. Sep. 18, 2015)