Stearns v. Cantrell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JUSTIN STEARNS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:2 3-cv-05061

SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL, Washington DEFENDANTS

County, Arkansas; ZACHARY CAUSEY,

Karas Medical Staff; MICHAEL MOORE,

Karas Medical Staff; and KARAS HEALTH

CARE COMPANY, LLC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Justin Stearns (Stearns), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging violations of his constitutional rights while he was detained at the Washington County

Detention Center (WCDC). He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP).

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L.

Brooks, 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 Stearns’ failure to obey

the Orders of the Court.

I. DISCUSSION

Stearns was incarcerated in the WCDC when he filed his Complaint. (ECF No. 1). When

he filed this case, Stearns was specifically advised that he was required to immediately inform

the Court of any change of address. (ECF No. 3). If Stearns was transferred or released, he was

told he must advise the Court of any change in his address by no later than thirty (30) days from

the time of his transfer to another facility or his release. Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local

Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas requires pro se parties to “promptly notify

the Clerk and 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.”

On July 13, 2023, Sheriff Cantrell filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of

exhaustion. (ECF No. 12). That same day, an Order was entered requiring Stearns to file his

response by August 3, 2023. (ECF No. 15). On July 26, 2023, the Court received returned mail

with a notation that Stearns was no longer at the WCDC. No forwarding address was provided.

The mail returned was the Court Order requiring Stearns to respond to the Summary Judgment

Motion. (ECF No. 15).

Stearns had thirty days, or until August 25, 2023, to advise the Court of his new address.

To date, Stearns has not provided a new address or contacted the Court in anyway. The last

documents filed by Stearns in this case were his Complaint and application to proceed IFP filed

on April 20, 2023. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2).

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). Stearns failed to

comply with the Court Order directing him to provide a new address and failed to prosecute this

case.

II. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 5.5(c)(2)

of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.

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 8th day of September 2023.

s/ Christy Comstock

CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE