# Carson v. Maze

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · September 9, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11159578

## Case

- **Full name:** Shane Eugene Carson v. Lieutenant Tabitha Maze
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 9, 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/11159578

## 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

SHANE EUGENE CARSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 3:25-cv-03043-CDC

LIEUTENANT TABITHA MAZE DEFENDANT

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). The case
is before the Court on Plaintiff’s failure to obey an order of the Court.
I. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Baxter County Detention Center, and is proceeding pro se.
On July 15, 2025, the Court provisionally filed Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) because Plaintiff
failed to submit an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application, and because Plaintiff did not use the
Court-approved form to submit his claim. See ECF No. 2, p. 1. The Court entered an Order that
same day directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and to either submit a completed IFP
application or pay the filing fee and administrative fee. See id. The Order imposed a deadline of
August 5, 2025 for Plaintiff to perform these tasks, and warned that if Plaintiff failed to comply
then his complaint “shall be dismissed, without further notice, for failure to obey an order of the
Court.” Id.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or IFP application, and has not sought
an extension of time to comply with the Order. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. On

August 6, 2025, this Court entered an Order giving Plaintiff 21 days to show cause why he failed
to obey the prior Order, and warning that if he failed to respond by this deadline, “this case shall
be subject to dismissal.” See ECF No. 5. That deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any
response nor sought any extension.
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.
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to Rule 41(b), 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).
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 9th day of September 2025.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11159578. Public record. Not legal advice.