United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
BRADLEY D. TUCKER ADC #145354 PLAINTIFF
JUSTIN KIMBLE, Lieutenant, Harrisburg Police Department, ADRIAN TODD, Officer, Harrisburg Police Department, GARY HEFNER, Officer, Harrisburg Police Department DEFENDANTS
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VOLPE 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
D. Tucker (“Plaintiff”) is incarcerated at the
Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction and
filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff's unlawful arrest
claims against Defendants Hefner, Kimble, and Todd proceeded
past screening. (Doc. No. 4.)
August 30, 2018, United States District Judge D.P. Marshall
granted Defendants' motion to compel and directed
Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests.
(Doc. No. 16.) Judge Marshall warned Plaintiff that if he did
not do so, Defendants may move to dismiss his complaint
without prejudice. (Id.) On October 8, 2018, Judge
Marshall again directed Plaintiff to respond to
Defendants' discovery requests after plaintiff objected
to the requests, in their entirety, as irrelevant. (Doc. No.
18.) After receiving no responses from Plaintiff, Defendants
asked the Court to extend the discovery deadline; Judge
Marshall granted the motion. (Doc. Nos. 20, 21). Judge
Marshall again informed Plaintiff that if he failed to
respond to Defendants' discovery requests, the Court
would entertain a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
(Doc. No. 21.) Now pending is Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. (Doc. Nos. 24, 25).
Plaintiff has not responded and the time for doing so has
passed. This matter is now ripe for a decision.
Court made Plaintiff aware of Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) the day
after he filed his Complaint. (Doc. No. 3). Under Local Rule
5.5(c)(2), a plaintiff who is proceeding pro se must
prosecute the action diligently, respond to communications
from the Court within 30 days or risk dismissal of the
action, and be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails
to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order,
a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim
against it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
first propounded their discovery requests to Plaintiff on
July 3, 2018-five months ago. (Doc. No. 15-1.)
Plaintiff's responses were due 30 days later.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2). The Court twice directed
Plaintiff to respond (Doc. Nos. 16, 18) and twice warned him
that the Court would entertain a motion to dismiss for
failure to prosecute if he failed to do so (Doc. Nos. 16,
21). Plaintiff still has ...