Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06007/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06007-0/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)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

BENJAMIN DWAYNE SCOTT PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-6007

 

SERGEANT R. RADLEY;

NURSE T. HARMON; OFFICER

J. DUNN; OFFICER B. STRICKLAND;

OFFICER DODGE; CAPTAIN M.

STEED; CHIEF HOLT; and

SHERIFF LARRY SANDERS DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Benjamin Dwayne Scott filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on February 27, 2006. At the time he filed the complaint, Scott was an inmate of the Garland

County Detention Center.

Scott did not pay the filing fee or supply the court with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). For this reason, the complaint was provisionally filed (Doc. 2). The clerk of

court was directed to mail Scott an IFP application. Scott was given thirty days to complete the

application and have an authorized officer at the institution complete the certificate and return

the application for review (Doc. 2). 

To date, Scott has not returned the completed IFP application. He has not paid the filing

fee. He has not requested an extension of time to provide the court with the completed IFP

application. 

Case 6:06-cv-06007-RTD Document 3 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

I therefore recommend Scott’s complaint be dismissed on the grounds he has failed to

obey an order of this court. Scott has failed to pay the filing fee or provide a completed IFP

application to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Scott has 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. Scott is reminded that

objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.

DATED this 17th day of July 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:06-cv-06007-RTD Document 3 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>