Arold v. NH, State of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Paul Arold
v. 	Case No. 19-cv-824-LM
State of New Hampshire
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Paul Arold initiated this case on August 8,
2019, by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No.
1) while he was an inmate at the Belknap County House of
Corrections (“BCHC”). 	Mr. Arold paid his filing fee on August
13, 2019, and has not filed any document or had any further
contact with the court since that date.
The court issued an Order (Doc. No. 4) in this case on
April 3, 2020. 	A copy of that Order was mailed to Mr. Arold at
the BCHC, Mr. Harold’s address of record. 	That mailing was
returned to the court on April 13, 2020, undelivered, and marked
“Return to Sender/Attempted-Not Known/Unable to Forward.” 	See
Doc. No. 5-1. 	Mr. Arold has not provided the court with a
current address at which he may be reached, as he is required to
do under this court’s Local Rules. 	See LR 83.6(e) (pro se party
is “under a continuing duty to notify the clerk’s office of any
change of address and telephone number” and any party failing to
do so is not entitled to notice).
Case 1:19-cv-00824-LM Document 8 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 3

2
On April 14, 2020, the court issued another Order (Doc. No.
6) directing that Mr. Arold, if he sought to further prosecute
this action, must so notify the court, and provide the court
with an updated mailing address pursuant to LR 83.6(e), on or
before May 15, 2020. 	In that Order, the court warned Mr. Arold
that failure to respond might result in the dismissal of this
case for failure to prosecute. 	That mailing, too, was returned
to the court undelivered.
It appears that Mr. Arold has abandoned this case.
Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss the matter for
lack of prosecution, sua sponte, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	See Torres-Álamo v. Puerto
Rico, 502 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (“A district court, as
part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss
a case for any of the reasons prescribed in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) . . .”); Cintrón-Lorenzo v. Departamento
de Asuntos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 526 (1st Cir. 2002)
(citation omitted) (court may dismiss an action under Rule 41(b)
if plaintiff fails to diligently prosecute the matter).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss this action in its entirety. 	Any objections to this
Case 1:19-cv-00824-LM Document 8 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 3

3
Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of
receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The
fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to
file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
June 8, 2020
cc: 	Paul Arold, pro se
Case 1:19-cv-00824-LM Document 8 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3