Ward v. Karas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

RYECUS C. WARD PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:23-cv-05201-TLB-MEF

DR. ROBERT KARAS, Facility Physician,

Washington County Detention Center (WCDC);

KARAS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH,

Medical Care Contractor;

NURSE EARL HINELY, WCDC; and

FORMER SHERIFF TIM HELDER,

Washington County, Arkansas DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Ryecus C. Ward, filed this civil rights action pursuant to the provisions of 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

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 Plaintiff’s failure to obey

the orders of the Court.

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center when he filed his

Complaint. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff was specifically advised that he was required to immediately

inform the Court of any change of address. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff 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. Id.

Additionally, Plaintiff was directed to file an Amended Complaint by November 30, 2023.

1

(ECF No. 3). Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to comply with the Order the case “shall be

subject to dismissal.” Id.

Plaintiff failed to file the Amended Complaint by the November 30, 2023, deadline. On

December 4, 2023, a Show Cause Order was entered. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff was directed to

show cause by December 26, 2023, regarding why he failed to file his Amended Complaint. Id.

Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond would result in the case being dismissed. Id.

On December 14, 2023, mail sent to Plaintiff was returned to the Court as undeliverable.

(ECF No. 7). The returned mail was the Show Cause Order. Id. Plaintiff had 30 days to advise

the Court of his new address. The new address was to be provided to the Court by January 16,

2024.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. He has not provided the Court with

his new address. The last documents filed by Plaintiff were his Complaint and Motion to Proceed

IFP. (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).

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.

II. CONCLUSION

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

2

PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b), based on Plaintiff’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 24th day of January 2024.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3