Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05032/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05032-4/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

JERALD KEITH DAVIS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5032

SHERIFF TIM HELDER;

LT. MUGGY; SGT. CAMBRON;

CPL. FREEMAN; CPL. KNOTTS;

and OFFICER TWARDOWSKI DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jerald Keith Davis filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February

21, 2006. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 

Separate defendants Corporal Knotts and Officer Twardowski filed a motion for

summary judgment (Doc. 26). Separate Defendants Sheriff Tim Helder, Lieutenant Muggy

Sergeant Cambron, and Corporal Freeman also filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 32).

To assist plaintiff in responding to the motions, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 39)

directing Davis to complete, sign and return an attached questionnaire that would serve as his

response to the summary judgment motions.

The plaintiff’s response to the questionnaire was to be returned by January 8, 2008. On

January 4, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the

questionnaire (Doc. 40). The motion was granted by order entered on January 8th (Doc. 41).

Plaintiff was given until January 31, 2008, to respond to the questionnaire (Doc. 41). 

To date, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the questionnaire. Plaintiff has not sought

another extension of time to respond to the questionnaire. Plaintiff has not communicated with

the court in anyway. The court's order was not returned to the court as undeliverable.

Case 5:06-cv-05032-JLH Document 42 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

I therefore recommend plaintiff'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). 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 12th day of February 2008.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05032-JLH Document 42 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>