Lyman v. Doe et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
LARRY ALLEN LYMAN 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:24-cv-05218-TLB-CDC
JOHN DOES 1-2, Sheriff Deputies,
Benton County; JOHN DOE NURSE,
Turnkey Health; and SHERIFF SHAWN
HOLLOWAY
DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L.
Brooks, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of
making a Report and Recommendation. The case is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s failure to
obey the Orders of the Court.
I. DISCUSSION
On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff, Larry A. Lyman, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983. 	He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 	Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Benton
County Detention Center (“BCDC”) when he filed his Complaint. (ECF No. 1). On November
18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address to a private residence in Rogers, Arkansas.
(ECF No. 6).
When he filed this case, Plaintiff was specifically advised that he was required to
immediately inform the Court of any change of address. (ECF No. 3). If Plaintiff was transferred
or released, Plaintiff was told he must advise the Court of any change in his address by no later
than thirty (30) days from the time of his transfer to another facility or his release. Id.
Case 5:24-cv-05218-TLB Document 18 Filed 03/11/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On January 31, 2025, mail was returned as undeliverable with a notation “return to sender
vacant.” 	(ECF No. 16). 	Plaintiff had thirty days or until March 3, 2025, to provide the Court
with his new address. 	Plaintiff has not provided a new address. 	The last document filed by
Plaintiff was his change of address notice filed on November 18, 2024. (ECF No. 6).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with an order of the court. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); Line v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (stating that the district
court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). 	Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a
district court has the power to dismiss an action based on “the plaintiff’s failure to comply with
any court order.” 	Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).
Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas
requires pro se parties to “promptly notify the Clerk and other parties to the proceedings of any
change in his or her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the
action diligently.”
II. CONCLUSION
For this reason, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 5.5(c)(2)
of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
Case 5:24-cv-05218-TLB Document 18 Filed 03/11/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Status of Referral: 	The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and
Recommendation.
RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March 2025.
s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-05218-TLB Document 18 Filed 03/11/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>