Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02069/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02069-2/pdf.json

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

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

CARL EDWARD WILLIS PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 06-2069

FRANK ATKINSON, GUARD MOULDER, 

GUARD JACOB FINK, GUARD RESTINE, 

CPL. PAUL, CAPT. CONGER, and LT. 

JACKSON DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21). On August 16, 2007,

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint (Doc. 35). On August 27, 2007, this Court GRANTED

Plaintiffs Motion, allowing him until and including September 10, 2007 to file his amended complaint.

Given the leave to file an Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the

original Complaint in this case should now be moot. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that the

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) be denied as moot. After Defendants have properly

answered the Amended Complaint, they may be directed to file a subsequent motion for summary judgment

if appropriate. For the same reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to Respond to the Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. 36) should also be denied as moot. 

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of August 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02069-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: <pageID>