Benton v. Ball
This text of Benton v. Ball (Benton v. Ball) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JOHNNY AUSTIN BENTON PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 6:22-CV-06047-RTD-BAB
TODD BALL, et. al. 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 Robert T. Dawson, 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 obey three Court Orders and failure to prosecute this case. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on April 26, 2022. (ECF No. 1). It was transferred to this District on April 28, 2022. (ECF No. 5). That same day, the Court entered Orders directing Plaintiff to file a completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application and an Amended Complaint by May 19, 2022. (ECF Nos. 7, 8). Both Orders advised Plaintiff that failure to submit the required documents by the deadline would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id.). When Plaintiff failed to submit either a completed IFP or an Amended Complaint, the Court entered a Show Cause Order directing Plaintiff to explain his failure to obey two Court Orders by June 14, 2022. (ECF No. 9). This Order also advised Plaintiff that failure to respond by the deadline would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id.). This Order was not returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit his IFP application, his Amended Complaint, and his Show Cause Response. 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 three Court Orders. 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 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 Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 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 8th day of August 2022. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Benton v. Ball, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-v-ball-arwd-2022.