Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_05-cv-01085/USCOURTS-arwd-1_05-cv-01085-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

DAMON JONES PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-1085

 

SHERIFF KEN JONES;

CHIEF INVESTIGATOR

JERRY THOMAS; and

LT. DARRYL EASTER DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff proceeds in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. On April 20, 2006,

defendants filed a motion to compel answers to discovery requests (Doc. 27). In the motion to

compel, defendants stated plaintiff had failed to respond to discovery requests. 

Defendants’ motion to compel was granted by order entered on May 2, 2006. (Doc. 29).

Plaintiff was directed to provide defendantswith the required responses to the discovery requests

by 5:00 p.m. on May 31, 2006. (Doc. 29).

On June 6, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 31). Defendants indicate

in the motion that they have not received the discovery responses or any other correspondence

from the plaintiff. (Doc. 31). 

On May 8, 2006, the court’s orderthat had been returned as undeliverable from the Union

County Criminal Justice Facility was re-mailed to the plaintiff at 307 North Cordelia, Magnolia,

AR 71753 (Doc. 30). This second mailing has not been returned as undeliverable. 

Plaintiff has not requested an extension of time to respond to the discovery requests.

Plaintiff has not otherwise communicated with the court.

I therefore recommend that the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 31) be granted. This

Case 1:05-cv-01085-HFB Document 32 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

case should be dismissed based on Jones’ failure to comply with the order of the court and his

failure to prosecute this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

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 14th day of June 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01085-HFB Document 32 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>