Kursh v. Caffey

E.D. Arkansas

Kursh v. Caffey

DecidedJune 27, 2024

Docket4:23-cv-00280

StatusUnknown

This text of Kursh v. Caffey (Kursh v. Caffey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kursh v. Caffey, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

KILO GEE KURSH PLAINTIFF ADC #146464

v. No: 4:23-cv-00280-KGB-PSH

AHMARI CAFFEY, et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION INSTRUCTIONS The following Recommendation has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. DISPOSITION

Plaintiff Kilo Gee Kursh filed a pro se complaint on March 22, 2023, while incarcerated at the Arkansas Division of Correction’s Maximum Security Unit (Doc. No. 1).1 On May 2, 2024, mail sent to Kursh was returned as undeliverable (Doc.

1 Kursh was later transferred to the ADC’s Tucker Unit. See Doc. No. 22. No. 26). On May 22, 2024, the Court entered an order directing Kursh to provide notice of his current mailing address no later than thirty days from the entry of the May 22 text order (Doc. No. 27). He was warned that his failure to provide a current mailing address would cause the undersigned to recommend his complaint be dismissed. A printed version of the text order was sent to him at his last known address. The envelope containing the Court’s May 22 order could not be delivered to Kursh because he was no longer at the address he provided, and the envelope was returned to the Clerk of the Court and entered on the docket. See Doc. No. 28. More than 30 days have passed, and Kursh has not complied or otherwise responded to the May 22 order. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court’s orders. 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 Kursh’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice. All pending recommendations should be declined as moot and all pending motions should be denied as moot. DATED this 27th day of June, 2024. emote

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

KILO GEE KURSH PLAINTIFF ADC #146464

v. No: 4:23-cv-00280-KGB-PSH

AHMARI CAFFEY, et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION INSTRUCTIONS The following Recommendation has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. DISPOSITION

Plaintiff Kilo Gee Kursh filed a pro se complaint on March 22, 2023, while incarcerated at the Arkansas Division of Correction’s Maximum Security Unit (Doc. No. 1).1 On May 2, 2024, mail sent to Kursh was returned as undeliverable (Doc.

1 Kursh was later transferred to the ADC’s Tucker Unit. See Doc. No. 22. No. 26). On May 22, 2024, the Court entered an order directing Kursh to provide notice of his current mailing address no later than thirty days from the entry of the May 22 text order (Doc. No. 27). He was warned that his failure to provide a current mailing address would cause the undersigned to recommend his complaint be dismissed. A printed version of the text order was sent to him at his last known address. The envelope containing the Court’s May 22 order could not be delivered to Kursh because he was no longer at the address he provided, and the envelope was returned to the Clerk of the Court and entered on the docket. See Doc. No. 28. More than 30 days have passed, and Kursh has not complied or otherwise responded to the May 22 order. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court’s orders. 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 Kursh’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice. All pending recommendations should be declined as moot and all pending motions should be denied as moot. DATED this 27th day of June, 2024. emote

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kursh v. Caffey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kursh-v-caffey-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack