# Smith v. Ross

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · July 8, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10233337

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** July 8, 2020
- **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/10233337

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
BYRON TERRELL SMITH, SR., )
Plaintiff,
V. No. 1:20-cv-62 JMB
AMY ROSS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,
initiated this case on March 25, 2020, and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court granted the motion, and reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
As fully explained in the Court’s May 18, 2020 order, the complaint was subject to dismissal
because it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against the defendant. The
Court gave plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the defects. In doing so,
the Court clearly explained why the complaint was subject to dismissal, gave plaintiff clear
instructions about how to prepare the amended complaint, and cautioned him that his failure to
timely comply with the order would result in the dismissal of his case without further notice.
Plaintiff's response was due to the Court on June 17, 2020. To date, however, he has
neither complied with the Court’s order, nor sought additional time to do so. The Court gave
plaintiff meaningful notice of what was expected, cautioned him that his case would be
dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and gave him significant additional time to comply.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss this action at this time without prejudice due to plaintiffs
failure to comply with the Court’s May 18, 2020 order and his failure to prosecute his case. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district
court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court
order); Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal
without prejudice where pro se plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite being
cautioned that dismissal could result from failure to do so).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED than an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this SoH day of July, 2020.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10233337. Public record. Not legal advice.