stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)
How later courts described this case
- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
INT HEU NITED SDTIASTTERSCI OCUTR T
WESTEDRNI STROIFCA TR KANSAS
FAYETTEVDIILVLIES ION
CODY GCA.T EWOOD PLAINTIFF
v. CivNio5l.: 22-cv-05147
SHERISFHFA WHNO LLOWAY DEFENDANT
REPORTA NDRE COMMENDATIOOFNT HEM AGISTRATE JUDGE
Purstuota hnpetr oviosf2i 8Uo .nSs§. §C6 .3 6(ba)n((d3l t))h, He o norTaibmloeLt .h y
BrooUknsi,tS etdaD tiesst Jruidcrgtee fe,r trhecidas st eot huen dersfoirtg hnpeeu drp oosfe
makianR ge poanrRdte commendTahcteai siobesne .fo trheCe o uwrittr he spteoPc lta intiffs
failtuoor bee tyho er doeftr hsCe o urt.
I.DISCUSSION
Thiisasc ivriilga hcttsfii loebndy t hPel aipnutrisfftu o4a 2nU t. S§.1 C9.8 3P.l aintiff
procperesodea s n idJn o nnpaa upePrliasi.in istn icffa rcientr hBaeet netCdoo nu nDteyt ention
Cen(t"eBrC DCB"yO) r.d eenrt eornJe ud2l 2y2, 0 2P2l,a iwnatsi ffd itrofie lacenta emde nded
complbayAi ungtu1 s02t,0 2(2E.CN Fo 4.) P.l aiwnatasid ffv itsheiadft hfa ei lteocd o mpwliyt h
thOer dtehrce a s"es hbaels lu bjteodc its miWshseaPnll .a"i fanitliteffofid l teh aem ended
complaaS ihnoCtwa, u Osred weares n te(rEeCNdFo. 5. ) P.l aiwnatgsir ffa nutnetSdie lp tember
122,0 2t2os, h ocwa uwshehy e fa ilteofid l aena mended complaint.
Tod atPel,a ihnatnsie ffi fitlheeadrna mencdoemdp lnaoriren stp otntodh Seehd o Cwa use
OrdePrl.a ihnatnsio ffst o ugahnet x tenosfti iomtneo c ompwliytt hhC eo urOtr'dseo rrs
communiwciattthhCe eod u ratn yiwnaN yom. a ihlab se erne turneadsu ndeliverable.
ThFee deRrualolef Cs i vPirlo cesdpuercei cfiocnatlelmydp ilsamtioesfa cs aasolen t he
1
ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with an order of the court. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); Line 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 plaintiffs failure to comply with
any court order.” Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).
Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas
requires parties appearing pro se to monitor the case, and to prosecute or defend the action
diligently.
II. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based on Plaintiff's
failure to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the order of the Court, and his failure to comply
with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
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 20" day of September 2022.
SteseGy,Cotmmelee □□
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE