Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05023/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05023-1/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)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

TONY LEON WALKER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5023

 

BENTON COUNTY DETENTION

CENTER; and ALL DEPARTMENT

EMPLOYEES IN THE BOOKING AREA

AND THE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN 

TRANSPORTING PLAINTIFF TO THE 

HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Tony Leon Walker filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

February 10, 2006. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

On March 7, 2006, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 5) directing Walker to

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

returned by April 7, 2006. 

On March 15, 2006, the court’s order and attached addendum were returned as

undeliverable. Thereafter, the court contacted Walker’s probation officer in an attempt to obtain

a current address for Walker. In apparent response to this inquiry, Walker notified the court of

his current address. A change of address was entered on March 23, 2006 (Doc. 6). All mail that

had been returned to the court was re-sent to Walker at the new address.

To date, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the addendum. Mail including the court’s

order and attached addendum that were sent to the new address on March 23rd have not been

returned as undeliverable. Walker has not sought additional time to respond to the addendum.

Walker has not communicated with the court. 

Case 5:06-cv-05023-JLH Document 7 Filed 04/21/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

I therefore recommend Walker’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). Walker

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. Walker is reminded that objections

must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.

DATED this 21st day of April 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05023-JLH Document 7 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>