Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01013/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01013-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Tramane Brewer
Plaintiff
Robert Philson
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

ANDREW TRAMANE BREWER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 1:06-cv-01013

ROBERT PHILSON, Magnolia

Police Department DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Andrew Tramane Brewer filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 26, 2006.

He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and

(3)(2005), the Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge, referred this case to the

undersigned for the purpose of making a report and recommendation.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25). To assist the Plaintiff in

responding to the motion, I propounded a questionnaire to the Plaintiff (Doc. 30). Plaintiff was

directed to complete, sign and return the questionnaire by December 15, 2007 (Doc. 30). To date,

the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the questionnaire. The order and attached questionnaire have

not been returned as undeliverable. The order was mailed to the same address as the court’s prior

orders. Plaintiff has not informed the court of any change in his address. Plaintiff has not sought an

extension of time to respond to the questionnaire or otherwise communicated with the court.

I therefore recommend this case be dismissed with prejudice on the grounds the Plaintiff 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

Case 1:06-cv-01013-HFB Document 31 Filed 02/05/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
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 5th day of February 2008.

/s/ Barry A. Bryant 

 HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01013-HFB Document 31 Filed 02/05/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>