# Fletcher

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · October 20, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11205853

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel David Fletcher v. Karas Correctional Health Services (KCH), Medical Care Provider, Washington County Detention Center (WCDC); Sheriff Jay Cantrell, Washington County, Arkansas; Dustin Sanders, KCH Paramedic; John Karas, KCH; Kelley Hinley, KCH; Jordan Prevenas, KCH Paramedic; Stephanie Lewie, KCH; and Jake Smother, KCH Paramedic
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 20, 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/11205853

## 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

DANIEL DAVID FLETCHER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:24-cv-5088-TLB-CDC

KARAS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH
SERVICES (KCH), Medical Care Provider,
Washington County Detention Center
(WCDC); SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL,
Washington County, Arkansas; DUSTIN
SANDERS, KCH Paramedic; JOHN KARAS,
KCH; KELLEY HINLEY, KCH; JORDAN
PREVENAS, KCH Paramedic; STEPHANIE
LEWIE, KCH; and JAKE SMOTHER, KCH
Paramedic DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Daniel D. Fletcher filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending
that he was denied adequate medical care while incarcerated at the Washington County Detention
Center. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L.
Brooks, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose
of making this Report and Recommendation. The case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s failure to
obey multiple orders of the Court.
I. DISCUSSION
On August 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address (ECF No. 49) indicating
that he had been released from custody. Accordingly, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 50)
directing him to either pay the balance of his filing fee in this matter or to resubmit an in forma
pauperis application by September 10, 2025. Plaintiff never responded to this Order, so on
September 12, 2025, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 52) directing Plaintiff to show cause by
October 3, 2025 as to why he failed to obey the Court’s Order, and warning that if he failed to
respond by this deadline then “this case shall be subject to dismissal.” Plaintiff never responded
to this show-cause Order.
On September 16, 2025, a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 53) was jointly filed by some of

the Defendants in this case. The Court entered an Order (ECF No. 55) directing Plaintiff to file a
response to the Motion to Dismiss by October 14, 2025, and warning that “failure to timely and
properly comply with this Order shall result in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice,
pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).” Plaintiff never filed any response to the Motion to Dismiss.
Both of the aforementioned deadlines have passed, and Plaintiff has not sought any
extension of them. The Court’s mailings to Plaintiff of the Orders imposing these deadlines have
not been returned as undeliverable.
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 20th day of October 2025.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11205853. Public record. Not legal advice.