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

CHARLES EDWARD JONES, SR. PLAINTIFF ADC #144544

V. NO. 2:23-cv-00207-BSM-ERE

CHRISTOPHER BUDNICK, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION I. Procedures for Filing Objections: This Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. Any objections filed must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for the objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not object, you risk waiving the right to appeal questions of fact and Judge Miller can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. II. Discussion: On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff Charles Edward Jones, Sr., an Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Doc. 2. Because Mr. Jones is a “three-striker,”1 he can proceed in forma

1 The following dismissals are “strikes” for purposes of

(g): Jones v. Does, E.D. Ark. Case No. 2:22-cv-51-BSM (June 30, 2022); Jones v. Gann, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. pauperis only if he is currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

(g); Ashley v. Dilworth,

(8th Cir. 1998).

Mr. Jones’ complaint alleges that: (1) Defendants forced him to work beyond his physical ability in 2019 and 2021; (2) Defendants violated his due process rights; and (3) Defendants verbally threatened him. These alleged facts and claims are

insufficient to suggest that Mr. Jones faces an imminent danger of serious physical injury. Based on Mr. Jones’ status as a three-striker and his failure satisfy the imminent-danger-of-serious-physical-injury standard, on October 11, 2023, the

Court ordered him to pay the $402.00 filing fee within 30 days. Doc. 5. The Court specifically cautioned Mr. Jones that his failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in dismissal of his claims, without prejudice.

To date, Mr. Jones has not complied with the Court’s October 11, 2023 Order, and the time for doing so has passed.2 III. Conclusion: IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Mr. Jones’ complaint be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his

4:11-cv-701-JM (Jan. 11, 2012); and Jones v. Arkansas, E.D. Ark. Case No. 4:11-cv-868-KGB (Feb. 23, 2012).

2 Mr. Jones has filed multiple motions to alter or amend this Court’s decision to deny his request for leave to proceed IFP, which the Court has denied. Docs. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. failure to: (1) comply with the Court’s October 11, 2023 Order requiring him to pay the filing fee; and (2) prosecute this lawsuit. 2. The Clerk be instructed to close this case. Dated 16 November 2023.

wal STA ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE