Williams v. Smith ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION HAKIM RAEKWON WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF v. Civil No. 2:22-cv-02119-PKH-MEF CORPORAL ASHLEY SMITH, et. al. DEFENDANTS MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, 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 two Court orders and failure to prosecute this case. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 22, 2022. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee in the Sebastian County Detention Center. (Id.). Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on February 7, 2023. (ECF No. 12). On February 17, 2023, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit his summary judgment response by March 10, 2023. (ECF No. 15). The Order advised Plaintiff that failure to submit his summary judgment response by the deadline would result in either Defendants’ facts being deemed admitted or in the dismissal of his case. (Id.). When Plaintiff did not submit his response, the Court entered a Show Cause Order directing Plaintiff to show cause for his failure by April 14, 2023. (ECF No. 16). Neither Order was returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a summary judgment response, has failed to obey both Orders, and he 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 two 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 For the reasons discussed above, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties have fourteen (14) 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 21st day of April 2023. /s/ HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE