Williams v. Smith

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

HAKIM RAEKWON WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:22-cv-02119-PKH-MEF

CORPORAL ASHLEY SMITH, et. al. 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), 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 two Court orders and failure to prosecute

this case.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 22, 2022. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleged that his

constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee in the Sebastian

County Detention Center. (Id.).

Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on February 7, 2023. (ECF No. 12).

On February 17, 2023, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit his summary

judgment response by March 10, 2023. (ECF No. 15). The Order advised Plaintiff that failure to

submit his summary judgment response by the deadline would result in either Defendants’ facts

being deemed admitted or in the dismissal of his case. (Id.). When Plaintiff did not submit his

response, the Court entered a Show Cause Order directing Plaintiff to show cause for his failure

by April 14, 2023. (ECF No. 16). Neither Order was returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff

has not filed a summary judgment response, has failed to obey both Orders, and he 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 two 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

For the reasons discussed above, 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 21st day of April 2023.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE