United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.
following recommended disposition has been sent to United
States District Judge James M. Moody, 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.
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
the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
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.
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 nontestimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the
hearing before the District Judge.
this submission, the District Judge will determine the
necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either
before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.
your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Johnson originally filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 action
while incarcerated at the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas
Department of Correction (Doc. No. 2). He notified the Court
of his release from prison on March 14, 2016 (Doc. No. 89).
pending before the Court are Defendant's Motions to
Compel and for Sanctions (Doc. No. 87, 91). By Order dated
April 7, 2016, this Court directed Plaintiff to file a
Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel within fifteen
days of the date of the Order, noting that his failure to
respond could result in the dismissal without prejudice of
his Complaint for failure to prosecute (Doc. No. 90).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion, and according to
Defendant's subsequent Motion for Sanctions, also failed
to appear at his deposition, scheduled on April 11, 2016
(Doc. No. 91).
Motion to Compel, Defendant stated that Plaintiff repeated
failed to respond to his discovery requests, including a
signed HIPAA medical authorization form (Doc. No.
87-2). Plaintiff originally was served with
discovery on September 4, 2015, and failed to respond. (Doc.
No. 87-2, p. 2) Although Plaintiff sent an objection to the
discovery request following Defendant's letter requesting
a response, Defendant objected to his responses as broad and
not in compliance with FED.R.CIV.P. 33(b)(4) and 34(b)(2)
(Doc. No. 62). In addition, Plaintiff failed to submit the
HIPAA authorization. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, and
discovery was stayed, pending the resolution of the appeal
(Doc. No. 70). The stay was lifted on January 8, 2016 (Doc.
No. 82), and Plaintiff filed an amended response to
Defendant's discovery requests (Doc. No. 83), again
broadly objecting to the requests and failing to include a
signed HIPAA medical authorization form. Counsel for
Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter on February 8, 2016,
requesting supplements to his discovery responses and
execution of the HIPAA form by February 29, 2016 (Doc. No.
87-3). Plaintiff responded, but failed to supplement his
requests (Doc. No. 86). Defendant then filed this Motion to
Compel, requesting an order compelling Plaintiff to comply
with his requests, or an Order dismissing the lawsuit (Doc.
subsequent Motion for Sanctions, Defendant states that
Plaintiff was served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum/Notice of
Deposition on March 30, 2016, rescheduling his deposition for
April 11, 2016 (Doc. No. 91-1, p. 6). Plaintiff failed to
appear at the deposition. ( Id., p. 3) Defendant
seeks sanctions in the form of attorney's fees and
expenses and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint.
LR5.5(c)(2) of the Rules of the United States District Courts
for the Eastern and Western Districts ...