# Campbell

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · August 18, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11422509

## Case

- **Full name:** Rodney A. Campbell v. St. Charles County
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** August 18, 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/11422509

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

RODNEY A. CAMPBELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 4:26-cv-00812-JSD
)
ST. CHARLES COUNTY, )
)
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. On July 22, 2026, the Court ordered
self-represented Plaintiff Rodney A. Campbell to either pay the full filing fee or submit a motion
to proceed without prepayment on the Court-provided form. ECF No. 4. The Court cautioned
Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of his case
without further notice. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s response was due by August 5, 2026.
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order nor sought additional time to
do so. Local Rule 2.01 authorizes the Clerk of Court to refuse to receive any pleadings “until the
applicable statutory fee is paid, except in cases accompanied by a completed application to proceed
in forma pauperis.” E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.01(B)(1). Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or submitted a
motion to proceed without prepayment. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was
expected, cautioned that his case would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and granted
ample time to comply. The Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s July 22, 2026, Order and his failure to prosecute his
case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)
(stating 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) (stating a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiffs 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 18th day of August, 2026. /| /

Yew sO
CRISTIAN M. STEVENS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11422509. Public record. Not legal advice.