Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ray v. Arkansas Department of Correction

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

October 16, 2014

MARY RAY, ADC #711032, Plaintiff,
v.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendants.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.

INSTRUCTIONS

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 the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge 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 hearing before the District Judge.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff Ray, a state inmate confined at the Hawkins Center for Women of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action against Defendants on November 4, 2013 (Doc. No. 2).

Defendants Corizon and Arkansas Department of Correction were dismissed on January 23, 2014 (Doc. No. 17), and Defendants Williams and Mullins were dismissed on July 28, 2014 (Doc. No. 38).

Summons was returned, executed, with respect to the sole remaining Defendant, Glynnis White, on May 6, 2014 (Doc. No. 34), after several attempts (Doc. Nos. 24, 26). Defendant White has not answered, and Plaintiff has not corresponded with the Court since she filed her Amended Complaint on January 16, 2014 (Doc. No. 16).

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that it is the duty of a party proceeding pro se to "monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently." The Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action against Defendant White. Accordingly,

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant White be DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.