Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02118/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02118-0/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)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

CARL DAWSON SMITH, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-2118

FRANK ATKINSON, Sheriff, Sebastian County, 

Arkansas; MIKE CONGER, Jail Administrator;

CRYSTAL WHITE REED; and CHRISTA MINTON DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Carl Dawson Smith, Jr., initiated this lawsuit in May 2004. (Doc. 1.) In his

complaint, he alleged that his constitutional rights were violated while he was detained in the

Sebastian County Detention Center. On July 25, 2005, defendants filed a summary judgment

motion, as directed by the court. (Docs. 18-23.) The court then ordered plaintiff to respond to

the summary judgment motion by completing, signing, dating, and returning a court-prepared

questionnaire by September 16, 2005. (Doc. 24.) To date, plaintiff has not responded to this

order, the order has not been returned as undeliverable, plaintiff has not communicated with the

court, and no later address for plaintiff appears in the record. Plaintiff was warned in the court's

order that his failure to comply by returning the response to the summary judgment motion could

subject this action to dismissal. 

I, therefore, recommend that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with

a court order and to prosecute this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

The parties have 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

written objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties

Case 2:04-cv-02118-JLH Document 25 Filed 10/24/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

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

the district court. 

DATED this 24th day of October 2005.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones

_________________________________________

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02118-JLH Document 25 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>