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.

Martin v. Beamur

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

April 14, 2015

ESKER MARTIN, III ADC #19785-14, Plaintiff,
v.
BEAMUR, Unit Deputy, Pulaski County Detention Facility; et al., Defendants.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

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 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:

DISPOSITION

On January 27, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Doc. No. 2) and ordered him to submit a completed application or the statutory filing fee within thirty days. (Doc. No. 3.) On February 6, 2015, that Order was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. No. 4.) On March 12, 2015, the Court entered a second Order warning Plaintiff that failure to update his address within thirty days would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). (Doc. No. 5.)[1] In excess of thirty days have now passed and Plaintiff has not complied or responded to the Court's most recent Order.[2] Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. Any pending motions be DENIED as moot.

3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations would not be taken in good faith.


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.