6:24-cv-06068•Authement v. Carl
Testo completo
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION TERRY PETER AUTHEMENT PLAINTIFF v. Civil No. 6:24-cv-06068-SOH-CDC CORPORAL MARK CARL DEFENDANT MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. Currently before the Court is the issue of service to Corporal Mark Carl. Corporal Mark Carl is the sole remaining Defendant in this case. (ECF No. 33). Service to him at the Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC) was returned unexecuted on August 13, 2025, indicating that Defendant Carl was no longer an ADC employee. (ECF No. 40). Defendant Carl’s last known address was provided by the ADC as directed in the Service Order. (Id.). Service was directed to that last known address on August 14, 2025. (ECF No. 41). Service to that last known address was returned unexecuted on September 23, 2025. (ECF No. 46). The return notes that it was unclaimed and there was no forwarding address. (Id.). On September 24, 2025, the Court entered an Order advising Plaintiff of the unexecuted summons and directing Plaintiff to provide another address for service to Defendant Carl. (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff responded on October 27, 2025. In his Response, he listed an address for the ADC. (ECF No. 55). On October 28, 2025, the Court entered a second Order directing Plaintiff to provide an address to Defendant Carl. (ECF No. 57). The Order advised Plaintiff that Defendant Carl was no longer an ADC employee, and service had already been attempted both at the ADC Case 6:24-cv-06068-SOH Document 62 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
2 and at his last-known address. (Id.). Plaintiff filed a Response on November 3, 2025, again providing the ADC address, requesting that this Court use the “address I have produced.” (ECF No. 58). Plaintiff filed another related pleading on December 8, 2025. (ECF No. 59). Plaintiff asks the Court to Order the ADC to provide the Court with additional information concerning Defendant Carl, such as electronic mail and social media accounts, so that the Court can use that information to locate Defendant Carl for service. (Id.). The Court does not provide research services to any party in any case. It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff to provide the Court with an address for proper service on the Defendants. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). Service upon Defendant Carl already has been attempted, both at the ADC and his last known address, without success. Plaintiff has been given two opportunities to provide another address for service and has been unable to do so. As Defendant Carl is the sole remaining Defendant in this case, and the Court has been unable to serve him, it is appropriate to dismiss the case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff is free to continue looking for valid service information and may refile the case in the future if he locates additional information concerning the location of Defendant Carl. I. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation. 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 Case 6:24-cv-06068-SOH Document 62 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3 reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. RECOMMENDED this 14 th day of January 2026. CHRISTY COMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case 6:24-cv-06068-SOH Document 62 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
Ti chiedi come si applica questo testo alla tua situazione?
Consulenza gratuita, senza impegno
Descrivi la tua situazione. Il nostro team ti ricontatterà via e-mail per la tua consulenza.
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.