# Swik v. Searcy County Jail

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · January 30, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632582

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 30, 2023
- **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/10632582

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION

JOSEPH SWIK PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 3:22-cv-03068-TLB-MEF

SEARCY COUNTY JAIL DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff, Joseph Swik (“Swik”), pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L.
Brook, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making
a Report and Recommendation. The case is before the Court on Swik’s failure to obey the Orders
of the Court.
I. DISCUSSION

Swik filed a Complaint (ECF No. 2) and IFP application (ECF No. 1) in the Eastern District
of Arkansas on November 22, 2022. That same day, an Order (ECF No. 3) was entered directing
the case to be transferred to this district. On November 28, 2022, the case was opened in this
district. (ECF No. 4).
On November 29, 2022, Swik was informed his IFP application was deficient because it
did not contain a certificate of account. (ECF No. 6). Swik was given until December 20, 2022,
to file a complete IFP application or pay the $402 filing fee. Id. Swik was advised that failure
to comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of the case. An Order (ECF No. 7) was
1
also entered advising Swik his Complaint was deficient and giving him explicit instructions on
what his amended complaint should contain. Id. The amended complaint was due by December
20, 2022. Id. Swik was informed that failure to comply with the Order would result in the
dismissal of the case.

On December 28, 2022, a Show Cause Order (ECF No. 8) was entered directing to Swik
to show cause for his failure to comply with the Court’s Orders (ECF Nos. 6 & 7). Swik’s
response to the Show Cause Order was due January 18, 2023. (ECF No. 8). Swik was again
advised that failure to comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of his case.
To date, Swik has not filed his complete IFP application, his Amended Complaint, or a
response to the Show Cause Order. He has not requested an extension of time to file his
responses. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. Swik has failed to comply with the
Court’s Orders (ECF Nos. 6-8).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the
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 plaintiff’s 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.

2
II. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Swik’s failure
to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the orders of the Court, and his failure to comply with

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
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 30th day of January 2023.

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

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632582. Public record. Not legal advice.