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 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.
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
Burns (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pro
se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 2.) He
alleges he was denied access to mental health treatment at
the Faulkner County Detention Center. (Id. at 4-8.)
Defendants Monte Munyan and Karen Grant have filed a Motion
to Dismiss and Brief and Affidavit in Support for
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this cause of action.
(Doc. Nos. 16-18.) After careful review, and for the
following reasons, I find the Motion to Dismiss should be
initiated this cause of action on September 15, 2017, by
filing his pro se Complaint and an Application to
Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit. (Doc. Nos.
1-2.) By Order entered September 19, 2017, Plaintiff's
in forma pauperis Application was granted and he was
informed of his duty to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
(Doc. No. 3 at 2-3.) Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) requires a pro
se party to “promptly” notify the Clerk and
the other parties of any change in his or her address. Local
Rule 5.5(c)(2) also warns pro se litigants that
failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of
the cause of action.
have provided evidence that Plaintiff has failed to comply
with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Correspondence mailed by
Defendants to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned
as undeliverable and indicated Plaintiff had been paroled
from the Arkansas Department of Correction
(“ADC”). (Doc. Nos. 17 at 1, 18-1 at 1.)
Additionally, my search of the ADC's Inmate Population
Information Search website reveals Plaintiff is no longer in
custody. Since being released, Plaintiff has not updated his
address with the Clerk or informed Defendants of his change
of address. (Doc. No. 17 at 1.) As Defendants state,
Plaintiff's whereabouts are currently unknown.
se litigants are required to follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants, including the local
court rules. See Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917
(10th Cir. 1992); Jarzynka v. St. Thomas Univ. of
Law, 310 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2004); see
also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986)
(“Pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with
substantive and procedural law.”). Plaintiff has failed