Ford v. Car Nation, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

JENNIFER FORD PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:23-CV-06128-SOH-MEF

CAR NATION, INC. DEFENDANT

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 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 a Court Order and failure to prosecute this

case.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on November 29, 2023. (ECF No. 1). That same day, the

Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application or

pay the filing fee by December 20, 2023. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff was advised that failure to obey

the Order would result in the dismissal of her case. (Id.). On February 6, 2024, the case was

referred to the undersigned for full pretrial and dispositive motions. (ECF No. 4).

To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit an IFP application or pay the filing fee. Nor has she

communicated with the Court since filing her Complaint on November 29, 2023.

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 a Court Order. Plaintiff has failed to either pay the

applicable filing fee or to provide a completed IFP application. 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 (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 5th day of March 2024.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE