Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02145/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02145-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

MICHAEL MORRELL SANDERS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2145 

SHERIFF FRANK ATKINSON;

CAPT. MICHAEL CONGER;

LT. GAYLA JACKSON; NURSE

CRYSTAL REED; CPL. MIKE

RESTINE; SGT. KIM TAUBLEE;

SGT. JUSTIN RITTER; and

DR. TOM TINSMAN DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael Morrell Sanders filed this civil rights action pursaunt to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August

17, 2006. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

On April 30, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 24) asking that the case be voluntarily

dismissed. He indicated that after discovery he realized he had simply forgotten he had been

exposed to Tuberculosis and treated with the medication known asINH at the Arkansas Department

of Correction. Plaintiff states he did not understand when he filed the lawsuit that he would always

test postive based on this prior exposure. 

Because plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) was unsigned, the court entered an order

(Doc. 26) directing the plaintiff to submit a signed motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a response

(Doc. 25) indicating they had no objection to the voluntary dismissal of the case. On May 7th, the

court received plaintiff’s signed motion to dismiss (Doc. 27).

I therefore recommend that the plaintiff be allowed to voluntarily dismissthis action and that

his motions to dismiss (Doc. 24 & Doc. 27) be granted.

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

Case 2:06-cv-02145-RTD Document 28 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

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 8th day of May 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02145-RTD Document 28 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>