Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06028/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06028-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Correctional Medical Services
Defendant
Jonak
Defendant
Ouachita River Correctional Unit
Defendant
Lewis Ray
Plaintiff

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

LEWIS RAY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-6028

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,

OUACHITA RIVER CORRECTIONAL UNIT,

and DR. JONAK DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Lewis Ray brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his

constitutional rights were violated while he was detained in the Ouachita River Correctional Unit

of the Arkansas Department of Correction. His case was initially filed in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. By order of that court, the case was

transferred to this court on the basis of venue. (Doc. 2.) Upon receipt of the case file, this court

entered an order (Doc. 3) directing plaintiff to return a properly completed in forma pauperis

(IFP) application or pay the $350.00 filing fee no later than July 21, 2006. The plaintiff was

warned that his failure to comply with the court's order would result in the dismissal of this

action.

To date, plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's order. Ray has not returned the

completed and signed IFP application, paid the filing fee, or communicated with the court. The

order to submit a completed IFP application was not returned to the court as undeliverable, and

no later address for plaintiff appears in the record. 

I therefore recommend that Ray’s claims be dismissed on the grounds that he has failed

to prosecute this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Case 6:06-cv-06028-RTD Document 4 Filed 08/11/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Ray has ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which to file

written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely written

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Ray is reminded

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

court. 

DATED this 11th day of August 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd

_________________________________________

HON. BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:06-cv-06028-RTD Document 4 Filed 08/11/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>