# Jones v. Runion

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · December 12, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632531

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** December 12, 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/10632531

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION

JUSTIN RAY JONES PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:21-cv-02206-PKH-MEF

SHERIFF HOBERT RUNION;
DEPUTY SHERIFF CORPRAL BRYANT;
DEPUTY SHERIFF OFFICER DAVIS; and
DEPUTY SHERIFF OFFICER BALL DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2011), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, Senior United States District
Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
Recommendation.
Plaintiff, Justin Ray Jones, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on December 21, 2021.
(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the same day. (ECF
No. 4). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court.
On October 11, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 29). In this Order, Plaintiff was advised that failure to timely and
properly comply with this Order would subject the case to dismissal. (ECF No. 29). This Order
was not returned as undeliverable mail, and Plaintiff failed to respond.
On November 7, 2022, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to
show cause, within 21 days, why he failed to obey the Court’s Order of October 11, 2022, and
respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 30). The Order to Show Cause
also advised Plaintiff that failure to respond would subject this action to dismissal. Id. This Order
was not returned as undeliverable mail. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s
Order to Show Cause or the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
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 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).
Plaintiff has failed to obey multiple orders of the Court. Therefore, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be
dismissed. Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The parties have fourteen (14) 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 12th day of December 2022.

/s/
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632531. Public record. Not legal advice.