# Brown v. Missouri Department of Corrections

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · April 15, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10236874

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** April 15, 2022
- **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/10236874

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION

BARRY BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 2:21-CV-78-RWS
)
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF )
CORRECTIONS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Barry Brown, a prisoner,
filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Missouri Department
of Corrections, and the Moberly Correctional Center. He indicated an intent to assert claims of
negligence and claims related to non-receipt of medically-necessary items, among others. He also
filed supplemental documents. The Court conducted the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),
and determined the complaint was subject to dismissal.
On February 28, 2022, the Court entered an order giving plaintiff the opportunity to file an
amended complaint to cure the defects. In that order, the Court clearly explained the reasons this
action was subject to dismissal, gave plaintiff clear instructions about how to prepare the amended
complaint, and cautioned him that his failure to timely file an amended complaint could result in
the dismissal of his case, without prejudice and without further notice.
Plaintiff’s response was due to the Court on March 30, 2022. To date, however, he has
neither filed an amended complaint, 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 waited additional time for him to comply. Therefore, this action will
be dismissed at this time, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s
February 28, 2022 order and his failure to prosecute this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also
Brown vy. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (“A district court has the power under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) 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 of pro se
litigant’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to file an amended complaint).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate
order of dismissal will be entered herewith.

C he W. SIPPED S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 15th day of April, 2022.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10236874. Public record. Not legal advice.