IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

JESSE JAMES NEAL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:20-cv-06116

LINGO, Lieutenant/Jail Administrator, Hot Spring County Jail DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed pro se by Plaintiff, Jesse James Neal, under

. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his address. Pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff filed this

action pro se in the Eastern District of Arkansas on December 2, 2019. (ECF No. 1). On September 30, 2020, the case was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division. (ECF No. 3). On October 14, 2020, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record – Hot Springs County Jail, 1 Detention Lane, Malvern, Arkansas, 72104 – was returned as undeliverable and marked “Return to Sender Not Deliverable as Addressed Unable to Forward”. (ECF No. 6). Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel,

(8th Cir. 1984). Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states in pertinent part: 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 . . . 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. Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).

More than thirty (30) days have passed since mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed of his current address and failed to prosecute this case. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be dismissed. Accordingly, I recommend Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant Lingo (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to

(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. DATED this 17th day of November 2020. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE