Freeman et al v. Jones et al

Filing 27

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Complaint Referred (42:1983) filed by Michael Joe Freeman; Objections to R&R due by 3/1/2010; case to be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with orders of the court. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 11, 2010. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WE S T ER N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS E L DORADO DIVISION

M IC H A E L JOE FREEMAN v. KEN JONES, Sheriff, Union C o u n ty, Arkansas; LT. JOHN WILLIAMS, Union County Jail; and DR. SEALE, Union County Jail C iv il No. 1:08-cv-01080

PLAINTIFF

D E FE N D A N T S

R E P O R T AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE M ichael Joe Freeman filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 10, 2008. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) and (3)(2007), the Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a report and recommendation.
O n June 2, 2009, Separate Defendants Sheriff Ken Jones and Lt. John Williams filed a motion fo r summary judgment (Doc. 15). On December 31, 2009, Separate Defendant Dr. Seale filed a motion fo r summary judgment (Doc. 23). On January 12, 2010, the undersigned entered an order (Doc. 26) directing Freeman to complete, sign and return an attached questionnaire that would serve as his response to the summary judgment motions. Freem an's response to the questionnaire was to be returned by February 5, 2010. To date, Freem an has failed to respond to the questionnaire. The Court's order and attached questionnaire have not been returned as undeliverable. The order was mailed to the same address as the Court's prior orders. Freeman has not informed the court of any change in his address. He has not requested an extension of time to respond to the questionnaire. I therefore recommend Freeman'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). 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 w aiver 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. D A T E D this 11th day of February 2010.

/s/ Barry A. Bryant

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE