United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
January 13, 2015
BASIL SANFORD, PLAINTIFF
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR PETER PETERSON, Johnson County Detention Center; and JAILER CHAD QUEEN, DEFENDANTS
Basil Sanford, Plaintiff, Pro se, Tucker, AR.
For Peter Peterson, Jail Administrator, Chad Queen, Jailer, Defendants: Colin P. Wall, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rainwater Holt Sexton, Little Rock, AR.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HON. MARK E. FORD, UNITED STATES 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 .
By order (Doc. 32) entered on August 20, 2014, Plaintiff was directed to advise the Court whether he intended to respond to the Defendants' summary motion on his own or would be requesting assistance in the form of a questionnaire. Plaintiff's response was due by September 19, 2014.
Plaintiff did not respond to the order (Doc. 32). He did not file a response to the summary judgment motion (Doc. 29).
On October 1, 2014, a show cause order (Doc. 33) was entered. Plaintiff was given until October 17, 2014, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with an order of the Court and his failure to respond to the summary judgment motion.
To date, the Plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order. He has not requested an extension of time to respond to the order. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court in anyway. No mail has been returned as undeliverable.
I therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice based on the Plaintiff's failure to obey an order of the Court, his failure to respond to the summary judgment motion, and his failure to prosecute his case. 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.