# Snow v. Correct Care Solutions LLC

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · April 16, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009139

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 16, 2018
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009139

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

DAVID C. SNOW PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:16-cv-06083

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et. al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court Orders and to prosecute this case.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 15, 2018, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 53) directing Plaintiff to
provide a Response to the Summary Judgment Motions filed by Defendants. (ECF Nos. 47, 50).
Plaintiff was ordered to provide his Response by March 2, 2018. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff was
advised that failure to timely and properly comply with the Order would result in Defendants’
Statement of Facts (ECF No. 52) being deemed admitted or in the dismissal of his case. This Order
was not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On March 12, 2018, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause for failing
to obey the Order of the Court by April 2, 2018. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond by
the deadline would result in the dismissal of his case. (ECF No. 54). This Order was not returned
as undeliverable. Plaintiff again failed to respond.
Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since October 17, 2017, when he entered
into a Joint Motion for Dismissal of several Defendants. (ECF No. 42).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the
grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the court. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (stating that the district court
possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district

court has the power to dismiss an action based on “the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court
order.” Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to comply with two Court Orders. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this
matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2)
Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s
Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of April 2018.

/s/P. K. Holmes,

P. K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009139. Public record. Not legal advice.