stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)
How later courts described this case
- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JONATHAN WAYNE RALSTON PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 5:24-cv-05075-TLB-MEF
PATROL OFFICER REX DEFENDANT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
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 Court’s Orders.
I. DISCUSSION
On October 23, 2024, Defendant Rex filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF
No. 17). On October 28, 2024, an Order was entered directing Plaintiff to respond to the Motion
by November 18, 2024. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff was advised that failure to “file the response
will result in the dismissal of this case.” Id. When Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion, a
Show Cause Order was entered on November 25, 2024. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff’s response was
due by December 16, 2024. Id. Plaintiff was again advised that failure to respond by the
deadline would subject the case to dismissal. Id. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion or
the Show Cause Order.
1
Plaintiff has not requested additional time to respond to the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings or the Court’s Orders. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed
to comply with the Court’s Orders. (ECF Nos. 20 & 22). In each Order, Plaintiff was advised
that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of the case.
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. Plaintiff has not done so.
II. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended that pursuant to Rule 41(b), this case be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Status of Referral: The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and
Recommendation.
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
2
the district court.
DATED this 6th day of January 2025.
/s/
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3