Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05024/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05024-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JOHN WILLIAM HETZEL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5024

 

DR. MULLINS; and

NURSE McDONALD DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro

se and in forma pauperis. 

Hetzel is currently incarcerated at the Arkansas Department of Correction. Hetzel

contends his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated in the Benton County

Detention Center. Specifically, he contends he was denied adequate medical care.

On September 20, 2007, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied (Doc.

22). On September 24, 2007, the case was scheduled for an evidentiary hearing on February 5,

2008 (Doc. 23). A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was issued to ensure Hetzel was

transported to the hearing (Doc. 25).

Hetzel has now filed a motion to dismiss the case (Doc. 26). In his motion, Hetzel

indicates he does not have the evidence to go forward with the case. He also indicates he has lost

touch with the witnesses. He therefore asks that the case be dismissed. He requests that the

warden be advised that Hetzel does not need to be produced for the hearing.

I recommend that Hetzel’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 26) be granted and this case be

dismissed with prejudice. 

Case 5:06-cv-05024-JLH Document 27 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

The parties have ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 8th day of November 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05024-JLH Document 27 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>