Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05020/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05020-1/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

REUBEN DURHAM, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 07-5020

 

BENTON COUNTY DETENTION

CENTER MEDICAL STAFF DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Reuben Durham, Jr., filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

February 1, 2007. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). At the time Durham filed

the complaint, he was incarcerated at the Benton County Detention Center.

On March 8, 2007, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 5) directing Durham to

complete, sign and return an attached addendum to his complaint. The addendum was to be

returned by April 6, 2007.

On March 15, 2007, mail sent by the court to the plaintiff, including the court’s order and

attached addendum, were returned as undeliverable with a notation that the plaintiff was no

longer at that facility. Although plaintiff failed to notify the court of his change in address, the

court was able to learn via the website maintained by the Arkansas Department of Correction that

Durham had been transferred to the East Arkansas Regional Unit. A change of address was

entered (Doc. 6) and all mail that had been returned to the court was re-sent to the plaintiff.

No mail has been returned since the change of address was entered. Durham has not

returned the addendum to the court. Durham has not requested an extension of time to complete

the addendum and has not communicated with the court in anyway.

Case 5:07-cv-05020-JLH Document 7 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

I therefore recommend Durham’s 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). 

Durham has 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. Durham is

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 15th day of May 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-05020-JLH Document 7 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>