Means v. Mulvane Police Department

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: 6:24-cv-01051
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

CHRISTOPHER MEANS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 24-1051-JWB

CITY OF MULVANE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Gwynne Birzer’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 9) which recommends dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R and the time for doing so has now passed. The R&R is ADOPTED and this matter is DISMISSED for the reasons stated herein. I. Facts and Procedural History On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed this civil rights complaint against the Mulvane Police Department and other Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff proceeds pro se and registered for electronic notifications of all filings on the docket. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) On November 7, Magistrate Judge Birzer granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 6, 8.) After screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Magistrate Judge Birzer held that Plaintiff’s allegations failed to tie the alleged constitutional violations to a particular Defendant and failed to identify the dates or times for the alleged instances of misconduct. As a result, the complaint was subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Doc. 8 at 5.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within 14 days to cure the deficiencies described in the order. Plaintiff failed to do so. On September 2, 2025, Magistrate Judge Birzer filed an R&R recommending that this action be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to prosecute this matter. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the R&R and the time for doing so has now passed. II. Standard “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report

under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte if “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” See also Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003). Pro se pleadings are construed liberally, but a district court cannot assume the role of an advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). And pro se plaintiffs must follow the same rules of procedure that govern represented litigants. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

III. Analysis Magistrate Judge Birzer recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute this action. The record demonstrates that Plaintiff has failed to comply with directives by this court in that Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint more than nine months ago and has failed to do so. This case has been on file for eighteen months and Plaintiff has failed to take any action or comply with the order entered by the court. After review, the court finds that dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute is warranted. IV. Conclusion Magistrate Judge Birzer’s R&R is ADOPTED and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 6th day of October, 2025. __s/ John W. Broomes_________ JOHN W. BROOMES CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE