Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_05-cv-01031/USCOURTS-arwd-1_05-cv-01031-0/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

CHARLES BERNARD STANLEY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-1031

PFC DARDEN, El Dorado Police Department;

UNION COUNTY ARKANSAS; KEN JONES, 

Sheriff, Union County, ARKANSAS; 

DR. SEALE, Jail Doctor; and DEBBIE 

HOWARD, Jail Nurse DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Charles B. Stanley filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 13,

2005. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP). 

On September 30, 2005, separate defendant Dr. Seale filed a motion for summary

judgment (Doc. 23). On October 6, 2005, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 26) directing

Stanley 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 November 7, 2005.

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

questionnaire have been returned as undeliverable. Additionally, a motion to compel filed on

November 8, 2005 (Doc. 31) by the defendants has been returned as undeliverable. 

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 and has not otherwise

communicated with the court. 

Case 1:05-cv-01031-HFB Document 38 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

I therefore recommend Stanley’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 16th day of November 2005.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01031-HFB Document 38 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>