# Bridges v. Dowdy

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 25, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011184

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 25, 2021
- **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/10011184

## 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
FORT SMITH DIVISION

JOSHUA BRIDGES PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:21-cv-02066

LIEUTENANT CARRIE DOWDY;
GUARD ALEX FONDREN; and
GUARD NATHANIEL HICKS DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable P. K. Holmes,
III, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a
Report and Recommendation. The case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s failure to obey an order
of the Court.
I. DISCUSSION
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Crawford County Justice
Center in Van Buren, Arkansas.
Due to deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Supplement (ECF No. 7),
Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint no later than May 17, 2021. (ECF No. 11).
Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to comply with the Order the case “shall be subject to
dismissal.” (Id.).
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff has not sought an
extension of time to comply with the Court’s Order. No mail has been returned as undeliverable.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with an order of the court. Fed.
1
R. Civ. P. 41(b); Line 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).
Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas
requires parties appearing pro se to monitor the case, and to prosecute or defend the action
diligently.
II. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b), based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, his failure

to obey an order of the Court, and his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b).
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.
DATED this 25th day of May 2021.

/s/
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10011184. Public record. Not legal advice.