Castro v. White

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

ERNESTO CASTRO PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:25-cv-06010-SOH-MEF

WARDEN WHITE

(Omega Technical Violator’s Center, Arkansas

Division of Community Correction);

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF DEFENDANTS

CORRECTIONS

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 Chief United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey

and referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 23, 2025. (ECF No. 1). He was incarcerated at

the time he filed his Complaint, and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status was granted on January 23,

2025. (ECF No. 3). On March 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Address Change indicating he

had been released from custody. (ECF No. 10). On March 5, 2025, the Court entered an Order

directing Plaintiff to submit an IFP application reflecting his free-world status by March 26, 2025.

(ECF No. 11). When Plaintiff failed to do so, the Court entered a Show Cause Order, directing

Plaintiff to submit his Response by June 9, 2025. (ECF No. 12). Neither Order was returned as

undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit either his updated free-world IFP application

or his Show Cause Response.

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 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) be

DSIMISSED 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 26th day of June 2025.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE