Bonds v. USA, No. 4:2017cv00092 - Document 42 (E.D. Ark. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 40 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; dismissing 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 2/10/2020. (jbh)

Download PDF
Bonds v. USA Doc. 42 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION STEVEN E. BONDS v. PETITIONER Case No. 4:17-cv-00092 KGB/PSH USA RESPONDENT ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris (Dkt. No. 40). Neither respondent the United States nor petitioner Steven E. Bonds has filed any objections, and the time to file objections has passed. The mail was returned undeliverable as to Mr. Bonds on January 17, 2019 (Dkt. No. 41). Local Rule of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas 5.5(c)(2) states that: It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk and the 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. A party appearing for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings and state his/her address, zip code, and telephone number. If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, after careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 40). The Court dismisses Mr. Bonds’ petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court’s order (Dkt. No. 1). Dockets.Justia.com It is so ordered this the 10th day of February, 2020. _____________________________ Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.