Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02166/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02166-0/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

LATOYA S. MOORE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2166 

PAUL SMITH, Detective, Fort 

Smith Police Department; JUDGE 

JAMES MARSCHEWSKI;

STEPHEN TABOR, Prosecuting

Attorney; and the FORT SMITH

POLICE DEPARTMENT DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on September 18, 2006. She proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

On October 26, 2006, the court entered an order (Doc. 5) directing the plaintiff to

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

The questionnaire was mailed to the plaintiff at the Sebastian County Detention Center. Plaintiff

was incarcerated there when she filed this lawsuit.

On October 30, 2006, the court’s order and attached questionnaire, the court’s order

granting her application to proceed in forma pauperis, and the order assessing the filing fee, were

returned as undeliverable. The envelop contained a notation that Moore was no longer at the

Sebastian County Detention Center. When Moore was booked in, she provided officials at the

detention center with a home address. The court entered a change of address on the plaintiff’s

behalf (Doc. 7). All mail sent to the plaintiff at both the detention center and the home address

she provided to the detention center when booked in has been returned as undeliverable. 

Case 2:06-cv-02166-JLH Document 8 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Plaintiff has not communicated with the court since her complaint was filed. She has not

responded to the court order (Doc. 5). She has not kept the court informed of her current

address.

I therefore recommend Moore’s claims be dismissed on the grounds she has failed to

prosecute this action and comply with the order of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Moore

has 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. Moore is reminded that objections

must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.

DATED this 27th day of November 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02166-JLH Document 8 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>