Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02184/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

DEREK GERARD JACKSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2184

 

SEBASTIAN COUNTY, ARKANSAS;

SEBASTIAN COUNTY DETENTION

CENTER; AND ARAMARK FOOD

SERVICE DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 20, 2006.

He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

On November 28, 2006, an order (Doc. 5) was entered directing the plaintiff to complete,

sign, and return a questionnaire that would be filed as an addendum to his complaint. Plaintiff

was given until December 27, 2006, to return the addendum. 

On December 1, 2006, mail sent to the plaintiff at the Sebastian County Detention Center

was returned to the court as undeliverable. On December 18, 2006, the court entered a change

of address (Doc. 6) utilizing an address plaintiff provided detention center officials when he was

booked in. All mail that had been returned was ordered re-sent to the new address (Doc. 6). A

notation on the docket sheet reflects the court’s order (Doc. 5) and attached questionnaire were

re-mailed to the plaintiff on December 19th. No mail was returned to the court as undeliverable

from this address.

However, on December 27, 2006, plaintiff informed the court that his address had

changed and a change of address was entered on his behalf (Doc. 7). A notation on the docket

Case 2:06-cv-02184-RTD Document 9 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

sheet reflects that the court’s order and attached addendum (Doc. 5) were again mailed to the

plaintiff. 

On January 25, 2007, a show cause order was entered (Doc. 8). Plaintiff was given until

the close of business on February 19, 2007, to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed based on his failure to prosecute the action and his failure to obey an order of the

court. Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to respond to this show cause order the undersigned

would recommend that the case be dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and his

failure to obey the orders of this court.

To date, plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order. Plaintiff has not sought an

extension of time to respond to the show cause order. Plaintiff has not communicated with the

court in anyway. The court’s order was mailed to the same address as other documents filed with

the court. 

I therefore recommend that this case be dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to

prosecute this action and his failure to obey the orders of the court.

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 21st day of February 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02184-RTD Document 9 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>