Gatewood v. Holloway

Opinion

INT HEU NITED SDTIASTTERSCI OCUTR T WESTEDRNI STROIFCA TR KANSAS FAYETTEVDIILVLIES ION CODY GCA.T EWOOD PLAINTIFF v. CivNio5l.: 22-cv-05147 SHERISFHFA WHNO LLOWAY DEFENDANT

REPORTA NDRE COMMENDATIOOFNT HEM AGISTRATE JUDGE Purstuota hnpetr oviosf2i 8Uo .nSs§. §C6 .3 6(ba)n((d3l t))h, He o norTaibmloeLt .h y BrooUknsi,tS etdaD tiesst Jruidcrgtee fe,r trhecidas st eot huen dersfoirtg hnpeeu drp oosfe makianR ge poanrRdte commendTahcteai siobesne .fo trheCe o uwrittr he spteoPc lta intiffs failtuoor bee tyho er doeftr hsCe o urt. I.DISCUSSION Thiisasc ivriilga hcttsfii loebndy t hPel aipnutrisfftu o4a 2nU t. S§.1 C9.8 3P.l aintiff procperesodea s n idJn o nnpaa upePrliasi.in istn icffa rcientr hBaeet netCdoo nu nDteyt ention Cen(t"eBrC DCB"yO) r.d eenrt eornJe ud2l 2y2, 0 2P2l,a iwnatsi ffd itrofie lacenta emde nded complbayAi ungtu1 s02t,0 2(2E.CN Fo 4.) P.l aiwnatasid ffv itsheiadft hfa ei lteocd o mpwliyt h thOer dtehrce a s"es hbaels lu bjteodc its miWshseaPnll .a"i fanitliteffofid l teh aem ended complaaS ihnoCtwa, u Osred weares n te(rEeCNdFo. 5. ) P.l aiwnatgsir ffa nutnetSdie lp tember 122,0 2t2os, h ocwa uwshehy e fa ilteofid l aena mended complaint.

Tod atPel,a ihnatnsie ffi fitlheeadrna mencdoemdp lnaoriren stp otntodh Seehd o Cwa use OrdePrl.a ihnatnsio ffst o ugahnet x tenosfti iomtneo c ompwliytt hhC eo urOtr'dseo rrs communiwciattthhCe eod u ratn yiwnaN yom. a ihlab se erne turneadsu ndeliverable. ThFee deRrualolef Cs i vPirlo cesdpuercei cfiocnatlelmydp ilsamtioesfa cs aasolen t he 1 ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with an order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Line 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 plaintiffs failure to comply with any court order.” Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas requires parties appearing pro se to monitor the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. II. CONCLUSION For these reasons, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the order of the Court, and his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). 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 20" day of September 2022. SteseGy,Cotmmelee □□ CHRISTY COMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE