United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. 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 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 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:
Plaintiff, Charles Aaron Winford, began this action on August 14, 2014, by filing a pro se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff did not, however, pay the statutory filing fee or submit an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit. Accordingly, on August 25, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or submit the appropriate application within thirty days (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff was also notified of his responsibility to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). ( Id. at 2).
On September 3, 2014, the Court's Order was returned as undeliverable (Doc. No. 3). The Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit which the Clerk mailed to Plaintiff was also returned on September 8, 2014 (Doc. No. 4). The Court then entered a second Order, directing Plaintiff to notify the clerk of his new address within fourteen days (Doc. No. 5). That Order also proved undeliverable (Doc. No. 6).
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). It therefore recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice on that basis.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's cause of action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply ...