# Prier v. Holloway

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · July 16, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11121667

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** July 16, 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/11121667

## 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
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

DYLAN JAMES PRIER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:25-cv-05089-TLB-CDC

SHERIFF SHAWN HOLLOWAY
(Benton County, Arkansas) 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,
for the purpose of preservice review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), 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 two Court Orders and failure to prosecute this
case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 24, 2024. (ECF No. 1). In the Order provisionally
filing his case, Plaintiff was advised to keep the Court informed of his address or his case would
be dismissed. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff was also directed to submit an Amended Complaint by May
15, 2025. (Id.). This Order was not returned as undeliverable.
When Plaintiff failed to submit his Amended Complaint, the Court entered a Show Cause
Order directing Plaintiff to show cause for his failure by June 13, 2025. (ECF No. 6). This Order
was returned as undeliverable, indicating Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated in the Benton County
Detention Center. (ECF No. 7). The deadline for Plaintiff to inform the Court of his new address
was set for July 7, 2025. To date, Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his address and has
not communicated with the Court since filing his Complaint in April 2025.
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 comply with a Court Order. 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 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 16th day of July 2025.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11121667. Public record. Not legal advice.