# Beaumont v. Goodwin

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 27, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11084775

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 27, 2025
- **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/11084775

## 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
FORT SMITH DIVISION

MICHAEL DUKE BEAUMONT PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:25-cv-02044-TLB-MEF

LIEUTENANT SAMANTHA GOODWIN;
SHERIFF DANIEL PERRY;
SERGEANT CHASE;
CAPTAIN V.C. WINTERS
(All of Crawford County Detention Center) DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was directly assigned
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to General Order 2024-02, but not all parties to the
action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly,
the case will automatically be reassigned to United States District Timothy L. Brooks and referred
to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1) and (3). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Federal and Local
Rules of Civil Procedure and failure to prosecute this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this case on April 29, 2025. (ECF No. 1). At the time of
filing, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Crawford County Detention Center. Plaintiff was granted
in forma pauperis status that same day. (ECF No. 3). He had previously filed another case against
the Crawford County Sheriff and a commissary provider on April 14, 2025, while still incarcerated
in the Crawford County Detention Center. (Case No. 2:25-cv-02040-TLB-MEF, ECF No. 1). The
Court takes judicial notice that mail sent to Plaintiff at the Crawford County Detention Center in
that earlier case was returned as undeliverable on April 22, 2025. (Case No. 2:25-cv-02040-TLB-
MEF, ECF No. 8). The deadline for Plaintiff to inform the Court of his new address was set for
May 22, 2025. (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his new address, and he
has not otherwise communicated with the Court in either case. A Report and Recommendation

has been filed in that earlier case recommending dismissal without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. (Case No. 2:25-cv-02040-TLB-MEF, ECF No. 9). The same recommendation is made
in this case.
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 keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local
Rule 5.5(c)(2). 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’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been
recommended for dismissal in 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 the
district court.
DATED this 27th day of May 2025.
/s/
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11084775. Public record. Not legal advice.