The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
TRALYNN D. JONES PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:21-cv-04034
SHERIFF JACKIE RUNION, Miller County,
Arkansas; WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court order and failure to
prosecute this case. Plaintiff, Tralynn D. Jones, filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on April 14,
2021. (ECF No. 3). On June 3, 2021, the parties consented to have the undersigned conduct all
proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. (ECF No. 16). Before the Court is
the Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case.
On October 25, 2021, this Court directed Plaintiff to respond to the Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 19) by November 15, 2021. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff has not responded to the
Motion.
On November 29, 2021, a show cause Order was entered giving Plaintiff until December
20, 2021, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey an order of the
Court. (ECF No. 26). The Order further stated: “Failure to respond to this Order shall result in
the dismissal of this action.” Id. Plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order.
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 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 and has failed to prosecute this matter.
Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint in this case should be, and hereby is, DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of January 2022.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE