Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05205/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05205-8/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ROBERT WILLIAM AVERY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-5205

SHERIFF KEITH FERGUSON; CAPTAIN 

HUNTER PETRAY; SGT. JOHNSON; 

LT. GENE HENDRICKS; SGT. CLIFFORD;

SGT. DAUGHERTY; DEPUTY HUBBS; 

DEPUTY EFRAM; DEPUTY RAHN; 

DEPUTY TOMLIN; and DEPUTY ADAMS DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 16th day of April, 2007, comes on for consideration

plaintiff's Motion To Reopen (document #110). There has been no

response to this Motion -- probably because plaintiff did not serve

a copy on the defendants as the rules require. The Court has,

nevertheless, elected to consider the Motion without waiting for a

response. 

1. The record reflects that the gravamen of Avery's claim was

that the defendants placed him at risk by allowing him to be around

inmates who wanted to harm him. 

In his Motion to Reopen, Avery now states that he failed to

prosecute his suit because he was afraid of the defendants,

themselves, and that one of them told him that "it would be in the

best interest of the Plaintiff if his civil complaint was dropped."

2. The Court dismissed the case in reliance upon the Report

And Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge dated October 5, 2006.

That Report And Recommendation details the difficulties the Court

experienced in trying to keep track of Avery over the course of this

Case 5:04-cv-05205-JLH Document 111 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

case (which was filed in August, 2004) as he went in and out of

detention; moved from one detention facility to another; and failed

to keep the Court advised of his address. The Magistrate Judge

recommended that the case be dismissed. 

The Court received no objection from Avery concerning the

Report And Recommendation and, accordingly, adopted it on October

25, 2006, and dismissed the case.

Now, in his Motion To Reopen filed some five months later,

Avery suggests that "his cowardice" prevented him from appearing at

the evidentiary hearing or objecting to the Report And

Recommendation.

3. Avery does not indicate that he has any objection to the

substantive portions of the Report and Recommendation -- only that

he was somehow prevented from either appearing or objecting with

respect to it. He does not indicate why, if his cowardice and fear

of defendants prevented him from objecting some five months ago,

they no longer do so.

4. In the Court’s view, Avery has presented nothing to support

his allegations that his “cowardice” and/or fear were inspired by

any conduct on the part of defendants or that he was otherwise

prevented from making timely objections to the Report and

Recommendation. Moreover, he has offered nothing to suggest that

the Report And Recommendation is otherwise incorrect either as to

law or fact. 

Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in the Motion To Reopen

Case 5:04-cv-05205-JLH Document 111 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

and the same will be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05205-JLH Document 111 Filed 04/16/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>