Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_03-cv-01093/USCOURTS-arwd-1_03-cv-01093-0/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

CARLOS R. SMITH, SR. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 03-1093

 

DOUGLAS NORWOOD, Jailer,

Ouachita County, Arkansas; and PAUL LUCAS, 

Sheriff, Ouachita County, Arkansas DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Carlos R. Smith, Sr., filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

June 11, 2003. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

On May 9, 2005, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 32). On May

25, 2005, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 35) directing Smith 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 July 5, 2005.

The plaintiff’s response to the questionnaire was not filed by July 5th.

On July 26, 2005, it came to the court’s attention that the plaintiff had been moved to a

different unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. For this reason, a change of address

was entered on his behalf (Doc. 36). The clerk was directed to re-mail to the plaintiff the

summaryjudgment questionnaire. The plaintiff was also given an extension of time until August

8, 2005, to file his response to the questionnaire.

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 website maintained by the

Arkansas Department of Correction, www.state.ar.us/doc/, shows plaintiff is still confined in the

Benton Work Release Unit. The plaintiff has not sought an extension of time to respond to the

Case 1:03-cv-01093-HFB-BES Document 37 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

questionnaire. Plaintiff has not otherwise communicated with the court.

I therefore recommend Smith’s claims be dismissed on the grounds he has failed to

prosecute this action and comply with the orders 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 8th day of September 2005.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-01093-HFB-BES Document 37 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>