# Gilmore

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · November 5, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11198132

## Case

- **Full name:** Byron T. Gilmore v. Steve Brock
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** November 5, 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/11198132

## Opinion text

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

BYRON T. GILMORE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No. 4:24-CV-1347-JSD
)
STEVE BROCK, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

At issue before this Court are Defendant Steve Brock’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 29)
and this Court’s corresponding Show Cause Order (ECF No. 30).
In October 2024, proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff Byron Gilmore filed a pro se 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. (ECF Nos. 1, 6.) On September 18, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to
Compel, in which he requested that this Court order Plaintiff to provide Defendant with his Initial
Disclosures and responses to discovery requests. (ECF No. 25) On October 6, 2025, this Court
granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel, warning Plaintiff that failure to comply could result in
dismissal of his case. (ECF No. 27.)
On October 21, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions, representing that Plaintiff
had not complied with this Court’s order regarding disclosures and discovery requests, and
requesting that this Court dismiss the action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with this
Court’s Order. (ECF No. 29.) The same day, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why
this Court should not grant the relief requested in the Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 30.) The
Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by November 4, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that failure to
do so would result in dismissal of the action. (Id.)
after Plaintiff failed to move for default or otherwise respond to the Court’s Orders. (ECF Nos. 23,

24, 28.) Plaintiff has not filed anything in this action since at least March 2025. (ECF No. 21.)
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Orders, nor sought additional time
to do so. This Court has provided Plaintiff meaningful notice of what was expected, cautioned that
his case would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and given him ample time to comply.
The Court will therefore grant the Motion for Sanctions and dismiss this action, without prejudice,
due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders and failure to prosecute his case. See
E.D.Mo. L.R. 8.01; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (a
district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court
order).

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.

___________________________________
JOSEPH S. DUEKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 5th day of November 2025.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11198132. Public record. Not legal advice.