Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05212/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05212-2/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)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JAMES PAUL COX PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5212

 

CAPTAIN PETRAY; and

LT. CARTER DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, James Paul Cox, filed this civil rights action pursuant to the provisions of 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 12). To assist plaintiff in

responding to the summary judgment motion, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 16)

directing Cox 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 January 22, 2008. On

February 4, 2008, a change of address was entered for plaintiff (Doc. 17). The questionnaire was

re-sent to the plaintiff and he was given an extension of time until February 21, 2008, to respond

to the questionnaire. To date, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the questionnaire. Plaintiff

has not sought an extension of time to respond to the questionnaire. The order and questionnaire

have not be returned as undeliverable. 

On February 15th, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 18). The motion to

dismiss is based on the plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order (Doc. 16). 

Case 5:06-cv-05212-JLH Document 20 Filed 02/26/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

I recommend Cox'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 26th day of February 2008.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05212-JLH Document 20 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>