Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04009/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04009-0/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

TEXARKANA DIVISION

PHIL OTIS CROSS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-4009

 

H.L. PHILLIPS, Sheriff, Miller

County, Arkansas; NURSE TERRY

PORTER; and JEFF BLACK, Warden

Miller County Correctional Center DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Phil Otis Cross brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds

pro se and in forma pauperis. Before the undersigned for report and recommendation is the

motion to dismiss filed by the defendants (Doc. 27).

DISCUSSION

By order entered on August 4, 2005 (Doc. 26), the court granted the defendants’ motion

to compel. Plaintiff was directed to provide the defendants with discovery responses by August

26, 2005. 

On September 12, 2005, the defendantsfiled a motion to dismiss (Doc. 27). Defendants

indicate plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order. They ask that the complaint be

dismissed without prejudice based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order.

On October 4, 2005, plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 28). He indicates

he believed he had retained an attorney. Plaintiff submits his account trust statement showing

he sent certain funds to an attorney. Plaintiff indicates the attorney retained the money and all

his records but did not meet any of the plaintiff’s deadlines. Plaintiff asks that the case not be

dismissed and he be allowed to respond to the requests.

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 30 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend that defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. I further

recommend that defendants be directed to provide the plaintiff with another copy of the

discovery requests and that plaintiff be given a specific date by which he must respond to those

requests.

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 7th day of October 2005.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 30 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>