# Ward v. Karas

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · January 24, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632924

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 24, 2024
- **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/10632924

## 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
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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632924. Public record. Not legal advice.