USA v. Digiacomo

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Crim. No. 6:23-cr-60017
Civil No. 6:24-cv-6158
ADAM DIGIACOMO 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 3, 2024, Adam Digiacomo (“Digiacomo”) submitted a letter to the Court
raising vaguely stated claims of conflict of interest and ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No.
35. The letter was filed as a pro se Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The Motion was initially referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford who determined the
Motion was deficient because: (1) it was not on the standard form § 2255 motion (Form Number
AO 243); (2) it did not contain a statement of the relief requested; and, (3) it was not signed under
penalty of perjury by the Defendant, along with a statement regarding when the motion was placed
in the prison mailing system (if the prison mailing system was used). See Rules Governing § 2255
Cases, Rule 2; Form Number AO 243. ECF No. 37. Based on these deficiencies, the Court provided
Digiacomo with a standard form Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Form Number AO 243), and ordered Digiacomo to
complete, sign, and file the standard form on or before January 3, 2025. Id. Digiacomo was notified
that failure to comply with this Order would subject his pending Motion to summary dismissal for
failure to obey a court order. Id.
To date, Digiacomo has not responded to the Court’s order. Accordingly, the Court
recommends this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Case 6:23-cr-60017-SOH Document 54 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to follow an order of this Court and failure to prosecute this
action. 	See 	United 	States 	v. 	Greenwood, 	2:18-cr-20021, 	2022 	WL 	495194 	(unpublished)
(recommending dismissal without prejudice of defendant’s § 2255 motion for failure to comply with
the Court’s Order) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 5.5(c)(2); Link 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)); and Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (holding district court
has the power to dismiss an action based on “the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court
order.”)).
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this 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. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8 th Cir. 1990).
DATED this 24th day of November 2025.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HONORABLE SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:23-cr-60017-SOH Document 54 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>