SEWELL v. SPICER, 13-2154. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20140815j58
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 14, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Magistrate Judge. Raymond Sewell filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on June 19, 2013. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis. On May 15, 2014, I entered an order (Doc. 18) granting the Defendant's motion to compel. Plaintiff was directed to provide the Defendant with discovery responses by June 4th. On June 9th, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 19). In the motion, Defendant
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Magistrate Judge. Raymond Sewell filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on June 19, 2013. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis. On May 15, 2014, I entered an order (Doc. 18) granting the Defendant's motion to compel. Plaintiff was directed to provide the Defendant with discovery responses by June 4th. On June 9th, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 19). In the motion, Defendant ..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Magistrate Judge.
Raymond Sewell filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 19, 2013. His complaint was filed in forma pauperis.
On May 15, 2014, I entered an order (Doc. 18) granting the Defendant's motion to compel. Plaintiff was directed to provide the Defendant with discovery responses by June 4th. On June 9th, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 19). In the motion, Defendant states he has not received the discovery responses from the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to dismiss. No mail has been returned to the Court as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court in anyway.
I therefore recommend that the Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) be granted. This case should be dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order of the Court and his failure to prosecute this action. 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
