United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
July 16, 2014
RANDY LAVELL WILLIAMS, ADC# 127318, Plaintiff,
KATHY BROWN, Defendant.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. 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. An original and one copy of 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 the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Randy Lavell Williams ("Plaintiff") filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant Kathy Brown, Warden of the Omega Technical Violator Center, impermissibly altered his sentence from sixty (60) to one hundred twenty (120) days upon his arrival at the Omega Center (Doc. No. 2 at 4). Based on the nature of his claims, the Court entered an Order on May 15, 2014, asking Plaintiff to clarify whether he sought to pursue his claim under § 1983 or pursuant to habeas corpus (Doc. No. 6). Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to respond to that Order could result in the dismissal of his claims without prejudice. That Order was returned as undeliverable on May 27, 2014 (Doc. No. 7). On June 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address (Doc. No. 8) and the Clerk of Court re-mailed the Order to the address provided on June 11, 2014. To date, however, Plaintiff has not responded.
In excess of fourteen (14) days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Order. Pro se litigants must still comply with all relevant rules of procedure. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835 n.46 (1975). Here, Plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this action and the Court therefore recommends that his Complaint be DISMISSED.
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 2) be DISMISSED without prejudice;
2. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order adopting these recommendations would not be taken in good faith.