Robinson v. Haney

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

MATTHEW WAYNE ROBINSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:18-CV-06119

JAIL ADMINISTRATOR SARAH HANEY DEFENDANTS

and SHERIFF CHARLIE CALDWELL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United

States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and

Recommendation.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order and Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 26).

I. BACKGROUND

On June 10, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel seeking Plaintiff’ s executed

medical authorization and other discovery responses. (ECF No. 23). On June 11, 2019, the Court

entered an Order granting Defendants’ Motion, and directing Plaintiff to provide Defendants with

a response to their discovery requests, including a signed medical authorization form, by 5:00 p.m.

on June 26, 2019. (ECF No. 25).

On June 27, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, stating Plaintiff had refused to

comply. In support of their Motion they attached a letter they received from Plaintiff on June 25,

2019, which states: “…I decline to answer any questions from you or have any more

communication with you until the court orders me to. However, once I hire an attorney, he will

be in touch with you.” (ECF No. 26-1 at 2). Plaintiff also indicates he will be released from

incarceration in a few weeks and will be seeking an attorney at that time. (Id. at 1).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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 local rules state in pertinent part:

It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk

and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to

monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. .

. . If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to

within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party

proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).

Additionally, 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 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).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has expressly stated that he will not comply with the Court’s Order directing him

to provide the requested discovery, including a signed medical authorization form. Plaintiff has

failed to prosecute this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)

and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), I recommend that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute

this case.

The parties have fourteen 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 2nd day of July 2019.

/s/ Barry A. Bryant

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE