United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
July 28, 2014
MONTY DORIAN ABEYTA-FRY, Plaintiff,
SHERIFF TIM HELDER; and NURSE RHONDA BRADLEY, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge.
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 14). Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. However, when the Court began reviewing the motion, it was necessary to convert the motion do dismiss into a summary judgment motion (Doc. 17). Defendants were directed to provide the Court with certain exhibits. The exhibits were received and filed (Doc. 18). A questionnaire was prepared to assist Plaintiff in responding to the motion. An order (Doc. 19) was entered on May 22, 2014, directing Plaintiff to file his response to the questionnaire by June 23, 2014.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed his response. He has not requested an extension of time to file his response.
On July 1, 2014, a show cause order (Doc. 20) was entered. Plaintiff was given until July 21, 2014, to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on his failure to file his response to the questionnaire and his failure to prosecute this action.
To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order. He has not filed a motion for an extension of time. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court in anyway.
For the reasons stated, I recommend that this case dismissed with prejudice based on the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and his failure to respond to the Court's order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
The parties have fourteen (14) 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.