AIKENS v. HELDER, 10-5028. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120207786
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2012
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ERIN L. SETTER, Magistrate Judge. Ennissee Shawn Aikens filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on February 11, 2010. The complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). On May 17, 2011, an order (Doc.19) was entered directing the Plaintiff to complete an addendum to the compliant. Plaintiff was advised that if she did not complete the addendum the case would be subject to summary dismissal. To date, the Plaintiff
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ERIN L. SETTER, Magistrate Judge. Ennissee Shawn Aikens filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on February 11, 2010. The complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP). On May 17, 2011, an order (Doc.19) was entered directing the Plaintiff to complete an addendum to the compliant. Plaintiff was advised that if she did not complete the addendum the case would be subject to summary dismissal. To date, the Plaintiff h..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ERIN L. SETTER, Magistrate Judge.
Ennissee Shawn Aikens filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 11, 2010. The complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP).
On May 17, 2011, an order (Doc.19) was entered directing the Plaintiff to complete an addendum to the compliant. Plaintiff was advised that if she did not complete the addendum the case would be subject to summary dismissal. To date, the Plaintiff has failed to complete the addendum.
On August 22, 2011, an order to show cause was entered (Doc. 20). This order gave Plaintiff until September 22, 2011, to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on her failure to respond to the order of the Court. Plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order.
I therefore recommend Plaintiff's claims be dismissed on the grounds she has failed to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The parties have fourteen 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.
Source: Leagle
