Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_04-cv-01097/USCOURTS-arwd-1_04-cv-01097-0/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

EL DORADO DIVISION

ANTHONY HICKS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-1097

PAUL LUCAS, Sheriff, Ouachita 

County, Arkansas; LT. JOE STRICKLAND, 

Chief Deputy, Ouachita County

Detention Center; CAPTAIN BRIAN 

BRIAN; LT. DAVID NORWOOD;

MIKE BLACKWELL, Chief Jailer;

JAILER DOUG NORWOOD; and

JAILER GARY GRIFFIS DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Anthony Hicks filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

September 7, 2004. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

On June 30, 2005, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 24). On

September 12, 2005, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 29) directing Hicks to complete,

sign and return an attached questionnaire that would serve as his response to the summary

judgment motion.

The plaintiff’s response to the questionnaire was to be returned by October 10, 2005. 

To date, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the questionnaire. The court’s order and attached

questionnaire have not been returned as undeliverable. The order was mailed to the same address

as the court’s prior orders. Plaintiff has not informed the court of any change in his address.

Plaintiff has not sought an extension of time to respond to the summary judgment motion

or otherwise communicated with the court. I therefore recommend Hicks’ claims be dismissed

on the grounds he has failed to prosecute this action and comply with the order of the court. See

Case 1:04-cv-01097-HFB-BES Document 30 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

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 25th day of October 2005.

 

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-01097-HFB-BES Document 30 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>