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.

Smith v. Valley

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division

January 22, 2015

LEON MICHAEL SMITH, PLAINTIFF
v.
OFFICER VALLEY, Springdale Police Department; OFFICER DEPPNER, Springdale Police Department; JOHN DOE OFFICERS, of the Springdale Police Department; and the SPRINGDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS

Leon Michael Smith, Plaintiff, Pro se, Fayetteville, AR.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

HON. MARK E. FORD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se .

When he filed this case, Plaintiff was an inmate of the Washington County Detention Center. He was specifically advised that he had the obligation to immediately inform the Court of any changes in his address (Doc. 3).

On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff advised the Court that he had been released and provided an address of 1714 Templeton Place, Apt. #2, Fayetteville, AR 72703. A change of address was entered (Doc. 8). On September 3rd mail that had been sent to the Plaintiff at the WCDC was returned as undeliverable and was resent to the home address he had provided.

On January 21, 2015, mail was returned undeliverable to the Court marked " unable to forward." The Court has no current address for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed anything with the Court, or contacted the Court in anyway, since he submitted the change of address in August of 2014. The Court has no way of contacting the Plaintiff.

I therefore recommend that this case be dismissed without prejudice based on the Plaintiff's failure to obey an order of the Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

The Plaintiff has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Plaintiff is reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.


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.