Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05209/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05209-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Weldon Bisdramp
Defendant
Randall Denzer
Defendant
Mike Freeman
Defendant
Tim Helder
Defendant
Travis Lunsford
Plaintiff

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

TRAVIS LUNSFORD PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5209

SHERIFF TIM HELDER;

CAPTAIN RANDALL DENZER;

CORPORAL MIKE FREEMAN; and 

CORPORAL WELDON BISDRAMP D E F E N D ANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

December 30, 2005. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

On January 13, 2006, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 5) directing Lunsford to

complete, sign and return an attached addendum to his complaint. The addendum was to be

returned by February 10, 2006. 

To date, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the addendum. The court’s order and

attached addendum 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 addendum.

I therefore recommend Lunsford’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).

Lunsford 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

Case 5:05-cv-05209-JLH Document 6 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Lunsford is reminded that

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

DATED this 2nd day of March 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05209-JLH Document 6 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>