# Stuart v. Warren County Sheriff's Dept.

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · July 11, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237282

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** July 11, 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/10237282

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL STUART, )
Plaintiff,
Vv. ; No. 4:22-CV-309 JAR
WARREN COUNTY SHERIFF’S ;
DEPARTMENT, et al., )
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented plaintiff Michael
Stuart commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action in March 2022, alleging deliberately
indifferent medical care for his type II diabetes while confined at the Warren County Jail. ECF
No. 1. On May 25, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, directed him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.00, and ordered him to file a second
amended complaint within thirty (30) days. ECF No. 5. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his
failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of the case without further
notice. Plaintiff's response was due on June 24, 2022.
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time to
do so. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, he was cautioned that his case
would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and he was given ample time to comply. The
Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with
the Court’s May 25, 2022 Order and his failure to prosecute his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the authority of a court to dismiss
sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control necessarily vested

in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss
an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate
order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this Lay of July, 2022.

eee
ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237282. Public record. Not legal advice.