Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05204/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05204-1/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

DANNY CONNER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5204

 

WASHINGTON COUNTY

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 16, 2006, Danny Conner, an inmate of the Washington County Detention

Center, submitted for filing in this district a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

complaint was provisionally filed prior to a determination regarding plaintiff’s status as a pauper

and service of process. 

With his complaint, plaintiff submitted an in forma pauperis (IFP) application. However,

he failed to have the certification regarding inmate funds held in his name completed. For this

reason, the IFP application was returned to him. Conner was given until November 13, 2006, to

either have the certificate portion of the IFP application completed by the appropriate detention

center official and return the application to this court for review and filing or pay the $350 filing

fee. Conner was advised that if he failed to return the completed IFP application or pay the $350

filing fee by November 13, 2006, the complaint would become subject to summary dismissal for

failure to obey an order of the court. 

To date, Conner had failed to return the completed IFP application or pay the filing fee.

Conner has not requested an extension of time. Conner has not communicated with the court in

Case 5:06-cv-05204-JLH Document 3 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

anyway. I therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed based on his failure to obey an

order of the court and his failure to prosecute this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.

Conner has ten days from receipt of this 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. Conner is

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 28th day of November 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05204-JLH Document 3 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>