Supastar Ware v. LT Unknown Wallace, et al.

E.D. Missouri

Supastar Ware v. LT Unknown Wallace, et al.

DecidedMarch 6, 2026

Docket4:25-cv-01168

StatusUnknown

This text of Supastar Ware v. LT Unknown Wallace, et al. (Supastar Ware v. LT Unknown Wallace, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Supastar Ware v. LT Unknown Wallace, et al., (E.D. Mo. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

SUPASTAR WARE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01168-SRW ) LT UNKNOWN WALLACE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff Supastar Ware, also known as Lamont Ware, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations. ECF No. 1. On January 21, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered her to file an amended complaint on a Court-provided form. ECF No. 17. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that her failure to timely comply with the Order would result in dismissal of her case without further notice. Plaintiff’s response was due by February 20, 2026. To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time to do so. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, she was cautioned that her case would be dismissed if she failed to timely comply, and she was given ample time to comply. The Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s January 21, 2026, Order and her failure to prosecute her case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 6th day of March, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

SUPASTAR WARE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01168-SRW ) LT UNKNOWN WALLACE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff Supastar Ware, also known as Lamont Ware, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations. ECF No. 1. On January 21, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered her to file an amended complaint on a Court-provided form. ECF No. 17. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that her failure to timely comply with the Order would result in dismissal of her case without further notice. Plaintiff’s response was due by February 20, 2026. To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time to do so. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, she was cautioned that her case would be dismissed if she failed to timely comply, and she was given ample time to comply. The Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s January 21, 2026, Order and her failure to prosecute her case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 6th day of March, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Supastar Ware v. LT Unknown Wallace, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/supastar-ware-v-lt-unknown-wallace-et-al-moed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack