# Carlton-Lee v. Elkins

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · February 17, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632622

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 17, 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/10632622

## 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
FORT SMITH DIVISION

ELLEN MADISON CARLTON-LEE PLAINTIFF
a/k/a ELLEN MADISON GILL

v. Civil No. 2:22-cv-02038-PKH-MEF

DR. ELKINS DEFENDANT

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), 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.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order and failure to
prosecute this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 1, 2022. (ECF No. 1). She was granted in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) status the same day. (ECF No. 4). In that IFP Order, Plaintiff was advised that
she must advise the Court of any address change within 30 days, or her case would be subject to
dismissal. (Id.).
On March 21, 2022, mail sent to Plaintiff at the Franklin County Jail was returned as
undeliverable, indicating Plaintiff was no longer at the facility. (ECF No. 9). The mail was resent
to the Arkansas Division of Correction - McPherson Unit. (ECF No. 9). On December 5, 2022,
mail sent to the McPherson Unit was returned as undeliverable, indicating Plaintiff had been
paroled. (ECF No. 11).
To date, Plaintiff has failed to advise the Court of her new address and has not otherwise
communicated with the Court.
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 failed to keep the Court apprised of her current address as required by Local
Rule 5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute
this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule
5.5(c)(2), 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.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) 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 17th day of February 2023.
/s/
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632622. Public record. Not legal advice.