REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge.

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff, Steven James Smith, against Sheriff Keith Ferguson, and Detective Dana Winn. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

By notice (Doc. 14) and scheduling order (Doc. 15) entered on August 9, 2011, this case was set for an evidentiary hearing on March 6, 2012. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the Court issues and serves all subpoenas and writs for witnesses. In order to be able to issue subpoenas or writs for witnesses, the Court must have the Plaintiff's response to the scheduling order. Responses to the scheduling order were due by February 6, 2012.

On January 18, 2012, a reminder letter was sent to Plaintiff and Defendants' counsel. The parties were reminded that their responses to the scheduling order were due by no later than February 6, 2012. No responses to the scheduling order had been filed by February 6th.

For this reason a show cause order was entered (Doc. 23) giving the parties until February 16, 2012, to submit their responses to the scheduling order. Plaintiff was additionally given until February 16, 2012, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to respond to the scheduling order. Furthermore, Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond to this show cause order would result in the dismissal of this case.

Both Defendants have filed their response to the scheduling order (Doc. 24 & Doc. 25). Plaintiff has not submitted a response to the scheduling order or a response to the show cause order. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. I therefore recommend that this case be dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to obey an order of the Court and his failure to prosecute this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The evidentiary hearing currently scheduled for March 6, 2012, is cancelled.

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.