Turner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

COREY TURNER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:25-cv-06022-SOH-MEF

SHERIFF JASON WATSON

(Clark County, Arkansas);

ADMINISTRATOR BRIAN WINGFIELD

(Clark County Detention Center) DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Senior United States District

Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and

Recommendation. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee for this

case.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint and Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on February

19, 2025. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). That same day, the Court entered a provisional filing Order noting

that Plaintiff appeared to be ineligible for IFP status due to having at least three prior cases

dismissed as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff was given the

opportunity to advise the Court why he believed that the cases listed in the Order did not constitute

strikes or, alternatively, why he believed the three-strikes rule did not apply to this case. (Id.).

Plaintiff was given until March 17, 2025, to provide this information to the Court. (Id.). Plaintiff

filed a Notice of Address change on March 12, 2025. (ECF No. 7). Although the initial Court

Order had not been returned as undeliverable, the Court sent another Order giving Plaintiff the

opportunity to address his eligibility to proceed IFP. (Id. at 8). The deadline for him to do so was

set for April 8, 2025. (Id.).

Plaintiff submitted a Response on April 4, 2025. (ECF No. 11). On May 16, 2025, the

undersigned entered a Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP be

denied. (ECF No. 12). The Report was adopted on September 16, 2025. (ECF No. 16).

Plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal on October 1, 2025. (ECF No. 17). On November 12,

2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an Order noting that Plaintiff has three strikes

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he could not proceed with his appeal without first paying the full

appellate docketing fee. (ECF No. 24). On March 27, 2026, the Court of Appeals entered a

mandate dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal because he failed to either pay the filing fee or demonstrate

eligibility to proceed under Section 1915(g). (ECF No. 25).

The undersigned then entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit his filing fee for this

case in full by April 27, 2026, or his case would be dismissed. (ECF No. 26). This Order was not

returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit his filing fee.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused

from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.

1984). The local rules state in pertinent part:

It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly

notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any

change in his or her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and

to prosecute or defend the action diligently. ... If any

communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded

to within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without

prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be

familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).

Additionally, 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 orders of the

court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link 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).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order. He has failed to pay the applicable filing

fee. Plaintiff has, therefore, failed to prosecute this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and Orders and failure to

prosecute this case.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been

recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.

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 15th day of May 2026.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE