Carson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

JOSHUA D. CARSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 3:24-cv-03014-TLB-MEF

OFFICER ALENA BROWN DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 a Report and Recommendation.

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 45), as well as her Brief in

Support (ECF No. 46). For the reasons given below, the undersigned recommends that her Motion

be GRANTED.

I. DISCUSSION

On September 11, 2025, Defendant Brown filed a Motion to Compel (ECF No. 41), stating

that Plaintiff had failed to respond to her discovery requests, and asking this Court to order him to

respond. Plaintiff never filed any response to her Motion, and on October 22, 2025, this Court

granted that Motion and ordered Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s discovery requests

by November 10, 2025. (ECF No. 44). On November 12, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss

(ECF No. 45), informing the Court that Plaintiff had failed to meet this deadline and asking that

his case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with orders of the Court. The

Court entered an Order that same day directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion by

December 3, 2025, and warning that “failure to timely and properly comply with this Order shall

result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).” (ECF No. 47). The Court’s

mailing of this Order to Plaintiff has not been returned as undeliverable, but Plaintiff has failed to

provide any response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as directed.

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 Defendant Alena Brown’s Motion to Dismiss

(ECF No. 45) be GRANTED and 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 (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 7th day of January 2026.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE