The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
TRAUOVES WATSON PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:17-cv-4108
SERGEANT BYRON GRIFFIE,
Miller County Detention Center (MCDC);
CORPORAL CORNETT, MCDC;
OFFICER BROWN; and OFFICER EDWARDS DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Trauoves Watson’s failure to obey an order of the Court.
Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on November 30, 2017. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff
supplemented his Complaint on June 12, 2018. (ECF No. 38). On September 6, 2018, Defendants
Sergeant Byron Griffie, Corporal Cornett and Officer Brown filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment.1 (ECF No. 41). That same day, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a
Response to Defendant’s motion on or before September 27, 2018. (ECF No. 44). Plaintiff was
advised in this order that failure to respond by the Court’s imposed deadline would subject this
case to dismissal, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). To date, the order has not
been returned to the Court as undeliverable and Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment.
1 Officer Edwards was never served and, consequently, he was terminated as a defendant on June 13, 2018. (ECF No.
39).
Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused
from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.
1984). The Local Rules state in pertinent part:
It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk
and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to
monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently
. . . If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to
within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party
proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
Additionally, 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 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).
Plaintiff has failed to obey an order of the Court. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be dismissed.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of November, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge