Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05132/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05132-2/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

STEPHEN JAMES ENGLEMAN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5132

 

SHERIFF KEITH FERGUSON;

DEPUTY MURRAY; and 

KEITH SMITH, Chief of Police,

Gentry Police Department DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 27, 2005.

He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 

On June 28, 2006, a summary judgment motion (Doc. 27) was filed by Sheriff Keith

Ferguson and DeputyMurray. On July 18, 2006, a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 30) was

filed by Chief of Police Keith Smith. To assist plaintiff in responding to the summary judgment

motions, a questionnaire was propounded (Doc. 36). Plaintiff was given until December 14,

2006, to file his response to the court’s questionnaire. 

To date, plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s questionnaire. On January 3, 2007,

separate defendants Sheriff Keith Ferguson and Deputy Murray filed a motion to dismiss (Doc.

38). They contend this action should be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to respond to the

summary judgment motion and to the court’s order. 

The court’s order and attached questionnaire have not been returned as undeliverable.

Plaintiff has not sought an extension of time to respond to the court’s questionnaire or to the

pending summary judgment motions. Plaintiff has not advised the court of any change of his

Case 5:05-cv-05132-JLH-JRM Document 40 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

address. Plaintiff has not communicated with the court in anyway. 

Accordingly, I recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted and that this action be

dismissed in its entirety based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his failure to

respond to the court’s order. 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 4th day of January 2007.

/s/ James R. Marschewski 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05132-JLH-JRM Document 40 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>