# Ware

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · March 6, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11280740

## Case

- **Full name:** Supastar Ware v. LT Unknown Wallace, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** March 6, 2026
- **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/11280740

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

SUPASTAR WARE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01168-SRW
)
LT UNKNOWN WALLACE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff Supastar
Ware, also known as Lamont Ware, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil
rights violations. ECF No. 1. On January 21, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis and ordered her to file an amended complaint on a Court-provided form. ECF
No. 17. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that her failure to timely comply with the Order would result
in dismissal of her case without further notice. Plaintiff’s response was due by February 20, 2026.
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time to
do so. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, she was cautioned that her
case would be dismissed if she failed to timely comply, and she was given ample time to comply.
The Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the Court’s January 21, 2026, Order and her failure to prosecute her case. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the authority of a court
to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases”); 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 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.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11280740. Public record. Not legal advice.