Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05287/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05287-1/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

MICHAEL GENE BATTIEST PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-5287

DEPUTY JOSEPH BUTH; DEPUTY

CHARLIE TOMLIN; DEPUTY 

SAMUEL PERRIEN; SGT. 

MICHAEL HOOK; DR. NEIL MULLINS; 

NURSE SUE McDONALD; and 

DEPUTY JAMES SHARP DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael Gene Battiest filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on November 22, 2004. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

On May 31, 2005, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19). On June

6, 2005, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 22) directing Battiest 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 11, 2005. The

plaintiff failed to respond to the questionnaire and on August 4, 2005 (Doc. 23) a report and

recommendation was entered recommending that the case be dismissed based on plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute the case and his failure to obey the order of the court.

On October 3, 2005 (Doc. 24), plaintiff filed an objection to the report and

recommendation. He asked for additional time to complete the summary judgment

questionnaire. On that same day, an order was entered giving the plaintiff until November 1,

Case 5:04-cv-05287-JLH Document 26 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2005, to respond to the questionnaire (Doc. 25). 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.

He has not otherwise communicated with the court. 

I therefore recommend Battiest’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 9th day of November 2005.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05287-JLH Document 26 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>