The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
RAVEN BROWN PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 1:26-cv-01035
WARD CREEK PROPERTIES and
KYLE GRIFFIN DEFENDANT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a civil action filed by Raven Brown. Plaintiff claims this Court has federal question
jurisdiction over this case. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
This case is before the Court for preservice screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court
has the obligation to screen a complaint filed in forma pauperis.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable John Thomas
Shepherd, United States District Judge, referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a
report and recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court recommends Plaintiff’s
case fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and must be DISMISSED.
Plaintiff filed this action pro se on June 15, 2026. ECF No. 1. On June 18, 2026, the Court
granted Plaintiff’s IFP Application but ruled the matter of service would be determined at a later
date. ECF No. 6. Because it was unclear to the Court what causes of action were being asserted by
Plaintiff in the Complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete an Addendum to the Complaint
which required Plaintiff to provide the basis for federal court jurisdiction, to explain in detail the
basis of the alleged cause of action against each Defendant, and to provide how each Defendant was
to be served with the Complaint. ECF No. 7.
The Plaintiff was ordered to complete this Addendum no later July 27, 2026. Id. Plaintiff
was also advised that should she fail to return the completed and executed Addendum by July 27,
2026, the Complaint may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or for failure
to obey an order of the Court. Id. Plaintiff has not filed the Addendum by July 27, 2026. ECF No.
7.
Based on Plaintiff’s failure to file the Addendum, the Court would recommend this case be
dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to follow an order of
this Court and failure to prosecute this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). See also Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (recognizing that consistent with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, a district court has the “inherent power” to dismiss a case sua sponte without
affording notice or providing a hearing).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court recommends the instant Complaint (ECF
No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to follow an order of this Court and
failure to prosecute this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this 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. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
ENTERED this 10th day of August 2026.
Spencer G. Singleton
/s/
HONORABLE SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE