Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02004/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02004-0/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

FORT SMITH DIVISION

THOMAS HENRY WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-2004

 

FRANK ATKINSON; CAPTAIN

CONGER; CPL. CARLA CINK;

OFFICER CODY SCARBOR;

and SGT. BROWN DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Thomas Henry Williams filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

January 12, 2005. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

On March 13, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25). On July

28, 2006, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 28) directing Williams to complete, sign and return

an attached questionnaire that would serve as his response to the summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff’s response to the questionnaire was to be returned by September 25, 2006. On

August 7, 2006, the court’s order and attached questionnaire were returned as undeliverable. On

August 8, 2006, a change of address was entered (Doc. 30). On August 25, 2006, an order was

entered directing the clerk to re-mail the court’s questionnaire to the plaintiff and plaintiff was given

until September 22, 2006, to complete, sign, and return, the questionnaire. Plaintiff was informed

that failure to comply with the court’s order may subject the case to dismissal.

To date, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the questionnaire. The court’s order and

attached questionnaire that were mailed out on August 25th have not been returned as undeliverable.

Plaintiff has not informed the court of any change in his address.

Case 2:05-cv-02004-JLH Document 32 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

I therefore recommend Williams’ claims be dismissed on the grounds he has failed to

prosecute this action and comply with the order of the court. 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 18th day of October 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02004-JLH Document 32 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>