Housev.Barnes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISIONJun 20, 2019
Civil No. 6:19-cv-06055 (W.D. Ark. Jun. 20, 2019)

Civil No. 6:19-cv-06055

06-20-2019

PAUL HOUSE PLAINTIFF v. DERRICK BARNES and JASON WATSON DEFENDANTS


MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief 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 obey a Court Order.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 15, 2019, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). It was transferred to this District on May 17, 2019. (ECF No. 3). On May 20, 2019, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by June 10, 2019. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Order by the deadline would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id. at 2). This Order was not returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not filed his Amended Complaint and has not otherwise communicated with the Court.

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. Plaintiff has 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 I recommend that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.

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 20th day of June 2019.

/s/_________


HON. BARRY A. BRYANT


UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE