Brown v. Arivette

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

BRION DAYSHAWN BROWN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:23-cv-06026-SOH-CDC

CAPTAIN EDDIE ARIVETTE, LT. DEFENDANTS

DARRYL PIERCE, JAILER SCOTT

WHITEHEAD, and JAILER BRANDON

PASSMORE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief 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 three Court Orders and

failure to prosecute this case.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 10, 2023. (ECF No. 1). On March 13, 2023, the

Court entered Orders directing him to file an Amended Complaint and a completed in forma

pauperis application by April 3, 2023. (ECF Nos. 4, 5). When Plaintiff failed to submit either

document by the deadline, the Court entered a Show Cause Order on April 6, 2023, directing

Plaintiff to show cause for his failure by April 27, 2023. (ECF No. 6). None of the three Orders

was returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to any of the three Orders

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 comply with three Court Orders. 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 Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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 5th day of May 2023.

/s/ Christy Comstock

HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE