Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05022/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05022-2/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

LARRY RAIFSNIDER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5022

SHERIFF KEITH FERGUSON;

CAPTAIN HUNTER PETRAY;

LT. CARTER; OFFICER 

ARHANGELSKY; and CPL. TOMLIN D E F E N D ANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Larry Raifsnider filed this civil rights action pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §

1983 on February 8, 2006. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

By order entered on October 30, 2006 (Doc. 17), the plaintiff was given until November

20, 2006, to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests. On December 8, 2006, the

defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 20). In their motion, defendants indicate plaintiff has

failed to respond to the discovery requests.

On December 19, 2006, a show cause order was entered (Doc. 22). Plaintiff was given

until January 12, 2007, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed based on his

failure to comply with an order of this court and his failure to prosecute this action by providing

defendants with the discovery responses. Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to respond to the

show cause order his case would be subject to dismissal based on his failure to obey an order of

the court and his failure to prosecute this action.

To date, plaintiff has failed to respond to the show cause order. Plaintiff has not

requested an extension of time to respond to the show cause order. The show cause order was

Case 5:06-cv-05022-JLH Document 25 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

not returned to the court by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not

communicated with the court in anyway.

I therefore recommend that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and that this

case be dismissed with prejudice based on the plaintiff’s failure to obey an order of the court and

his failure to prosecute this action. 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 19th day of January 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05022-JLH Document 25 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>