# Newberry v. Klatt

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · June 23, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11105637

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 23, 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/11105637

## 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
HARRISON DIVISION

AARON NEWBERRY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 3:24-cv-03055-TLB-MEF

SHERIFF DANIEL KLATT
(Carroll County, Arkansas);
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR KEITH LEOPOLD
(Carroll County Detention Center) DEFENDANTS

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 Timothy L. Brooks, 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 two Court Orders and failure to prosecute
this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 20, 2024. (ECF No. 1). On March 31, 2025,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 12). On April 1, 2025, the Court entered an
Order directing Plaintiff to submit his Response to the Motion to Dismiss by April 22, 2025. (ECF
No. 14). When Plaintiff failed to submit his Response, the Court entered a Show Cause Order on
May 23, 2025. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff was directed to submit his Show Cause Response by June
13, 2025. (Id.). In both Orders, Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond by the deadline would
result in the dismissal of his case. (ECF Nos. 14, 15). Neither Order was returned as undeliverable.
To date, Plaintiff has not submitted a Response, and he has failed to otherwise communicate with
the Court.
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 two Court Orders. 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 23rd day of June 2025.
/s/
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11105637. Public record. Not legal advice.