Brewer v. Philson

Filing 31

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Andrew Tramane Brewer; Objections to R&R due by 2/25/2008; complaint should be dismissed with prejudice on grounds the plaintiff failed to prosecute and comply with court order. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 5, 2008. (cnn)

Brewer v. Philson

Doc. 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION

ANDREW TRAMANE BREWER v. ROBERT PHILSON, Magnolia Police Department Civil No. 1:06-cv-01013

PLAINTIFF

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

Dockets.Justia.com

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