Young v. Hobbs, No. 5:2012cv00319 - Document 4 (E.D. Ark. 2012)
Court Description: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that petitioner's petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with LR 5.5(c)(2), and failure to respond to the Court's order 2 . The Court certify that an ifp app eal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith. Objections to R&R due no later than 14 days from the date of the findings and recommendations. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 9/26/2012. (lej)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Young v. Hobbs Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION ANTHONY L. YOUNG ADC #510378 PETITIONER 5:12CV00319 BSM/HDY RAY HOBBS Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS The following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge in the form of an offer of 1 Dockets.Justia.com proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge. From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to: Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 DISPOSITION Petitioner Anthony L. Young, an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate who is currently incarcerated at the Cummins Unit, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (docket entry #2) on August 17, 2012. On August 20, 2012, Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was denied, and he was directed to pay the $5.00 filing fee (docket entry #3). That same order warned Petitioner that his failure to do so within 30 days would result in the recommended dismissal of his petition. More than 30 days have passed, and Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to the order. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and for failure to respond to the Court’s order. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion). IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Petitioner’s petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and failure to respond to the Court’s order. 2. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment 2 dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith. DATED this 26 day of September, 2012. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3
]]>
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.
