Lewis

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

LETRELL LEWIS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:25-cv-05245-TLB-CDC

DOES DEFENDANTS

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,

the case will automatically be reassigned to Chief United States District Judge 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

On November 21, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Arkansas received a handwritten letter from Plaintiff, which it construed as a complaint. See ECF

No. 1. Three days later, that Court transferred the case it had opened under Plaintiff’s complaint

to this Court because Plaintiff, who was incarcerated at the Washington County Detention Center

(“WCDC”), appeared to be complaining of injuries which occurred here in the Western District of

Arkansas. See ECF No. 2. On November 26, 2025, this Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff

to either pay the filing fee file or submit an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application by December

17, 2025. See ECF No. 6. This Court also entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an

amended complaint on this Court’s approved form for prisoner § 1983 lawsuits by December 17,

2025. See ECF No. 7. The Court mailed blank copies of the aforementioned forms to Plaintiff.

See ECF Nos. 6, 7. After this deadline passed with no filing fee, IFP application, or amended

complaint having been submitted, this Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause

why he failed to obey those Orders by January 30, 2026, and warning that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to

respond by the deadline, this case shall be subject to dismissal.” See ECF No. 8.

On January 29, 2026, this Court received a lengthy handwritten letter from Plaintiff,

presumably in response to this Court’s show-cause Order. See ECF No. 9. The letter alleges that

various employees or officers at the WCDC are refusing to provide him with the names, badge

numbers, or job titles of various individuals whom he wishes to sue. See id. at 1. The letter then

proceeds to discuss at great length the factual bases for the various claims he wishes to bring and

discovery he wishes to conduct in this lawsuit. See generally id. What the letter does not discuss,

however, is why Plaintiff still has not filled out and returned the forms which this Court mailed to

him and instructed him to fill out and submit. This case cannot proceed if Plaintiff refuses to pay

the filing fee or apply for IFP status in this lawsuit. And this case cannot proceed if Plaintiff

refuses to describe his claims on the court-approved form for prisoner § 1983 lawsuits, so that this

Court can more clearly discern what each separate claim and its factual basis is.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the

grounds 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 24th day of February 2026.

/s/ Christy Comstock

HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE