Baker v. State of Arkansas

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
TANNER BAKER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 3:25-cv-03085-TLB-CDC
STATE OF ARKANSAS 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was directly assigned
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to General Order 2024-02, but not all parties to the
action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly,
the case will automatically be reassigned to Chief United States District Judge Timothy L. Brooks
and referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3). The case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s failure to obey an order of
the Court.
I. DISCUSSION
On November 24, 2025, this Court received a complaint (ECF No. 1) and in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) application (ECF No. 2) from Plaintiff, who was incarcerated in the Newton County Jail
in Jasper, Arkansas. 	Because Plaintiff’s IFP application was incomplete, this Court entered an
Order directing him to either pay the filing fee or provide a completed Certificate of Account by
December 15, 2025. See ECF No. 3. That Order also instructed Plaintiff that if he is transferred
to another jail or prison or released, then he must inform the Court of his new address within thirty
days of his transfer or release. See id. This Order was eventually returned as undeliverable, see
ECF No. 5, but Plaintiff never provided the Court with his updated address and never submitted
Case 3:25-cv-03085-DCF Document 8 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
any filing fee or completed Certificate of Account. Accordingly, on January 12, 2026, this Court
entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to obey its previous Order by
February 2, 2026, and warning that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to respond by the deadline, this case shall
be subject to dismissal.” 	See ECF No. 6. 	Plaintiff never filed any response to the show-cause
Order, which likewise was returned as undeliverable, see ECF No. 7, and he still has not provided
the Court with any updated address.
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 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 plaintiff’s 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
Accordingly, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to Rule 41(b), based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the
orders of the Court, and his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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.
Case 3:25-cv-03085-DCF Document 8 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
DATED this 23rd day of February 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03085-DCF Document 8 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>