United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief
United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. 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
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a
hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the
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.
this submission, the District Judge will determine the
necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your
objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of
Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR
Pruitt (“Plaintiff”) and two other plaintiffs
filed this action pro se and pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) They allege Defendants violated
his First Amendment rights with regard to the free exercise
of religion. (Id. at 4.) On December 13, 2016, I
notified Plaintiff that his Complaint was devoid of facts and
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
(Doc. No.7.) I suggested dismissal would be likely and
offered him a chance to amend within thirty days.
January 12, 2017, Plaintiff requested additional time to
“submit an appeal for this case” but I denied
that Motion because there had been no appealable order filed.
(Doc. No. 9.) Nevertheless, I extended the time for Plaintiff
to choose whether or not he wanted to file an Amended
Complaint until February 1, 2017. (Id.) The time has
expired for Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint and he has
filed nothing. So after careful consideration of
Plaintiff's Complaint, for the following reasons, I
conclude this cause of action should be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.