Miller v. Higgins

E.D. Arkansas

Miller v. Higgins

DecidedAugust 19, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00472

StatusUnknown

This text of Miller v. Higgins (Miller v. Higgins) 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

Miller v. Higgins, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

DAVID MILLER PLAINTIFF ADC #146453

v. No: 4:24-cv-00472-KGB-PSH

ERIC HIGGINS DEFENDANT

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 David Miller filed a pro se complaint on May 31, 2024 (Doc. No. 2). On June 12, 2024, Miller was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed to file an amended complaint to clarify his claims (Doc. No. 3). He was cautioned that failure to file an amended complaint may result in the dismissal of his case. More than 30 days have passed, and Miller has not complied or otherwise responded to the June 12 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 1s reviewed for abuse of discretion). It is therefore recommended that Miller’s complaint (Doc. No. 2) be dismissed without prejudice. DATED this 19th day of August, 2024. moana? Scans

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

DAVID MILLER PLAINTIFF ADC #146453

v. No: 4:24-cv-00472-KGB-PSH

ERIC HIGGINS DEFENDANT

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 David Miller filed a pro se complaint on May 31, 2024 (Doc. No. 2). On June 12, 2024, Miller was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed to file an amended complaint to clarify his claims (Doc. No. 3). He was cautioned that failure to file an amended complaint may result in the dismissal of his case. More than 30 days have passed, and Miller has not complied or otherwise responded to the June 12 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 1s reviewed for abuse of discretion). It is therefore recommended that Miller’s complaint (Doc. No. 2) be dismissed without prejudice. DATED this 19th day of August, 2024. moana? Scans

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Miller v. Higgins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-higgins-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack