Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05028/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05028-5/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

BRETT BEAUDRY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5028

 

SHERIFF KEITH FERGUSON;

CAPT. HUNTER PETRAY;

LT. CARTER; SGT. C. NANCE, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Brett Beaudry filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

February 15, 2006. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

On November 15, 2006, defendants filed a motion to compel responses to discovery

requests (Doc. 37). On November 16, 2006, an order was entered (Doc. 39) directing Beaudry

to provide the discovery responses to defendants by 5:00 p.m. on December 15, 2006.

On December 21, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 41). In their motion,

defendants assert that the plaintiff failed to provide the required discovery responses. 

On December 28, 2006, an order was entered (Doc. 43) directing the plaintiff to show

cause by January 12, 2007, why this case should not be dismissed based on hisfailure to comply

with an order of the court and his failure to prosecute the case. 

On January 19, 2007, the defendants filed a supplemental motion to dismiss (Doc. 44).

In the supplemental motion, defendants assert they still have not received any discovery

responses from the plaintiff. Further, defendants point out the plaintiff has failed to respond to

the show cause order. 

Case 5:06-cv-05028-JLH Document 46 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

On January 23, 2007, mail sent to the plaintiff at his address in Noel, Missouri, was

returned to the court as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not informed the court of any change in his

address. Plaintiff has not communicated with the court or opposing counsel. 

I therefore recommend defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted and Beaudry’s claims

be dismissed on the grounds he has failed to prosecute this action and comply with the order of

the court. See 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 25th day of January 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05028-JLH Document 46 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>