Jason Shawn Pettit vs Justin Garner et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JASON SHAWN PETTIT 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:25-cv-04059-SOH-SGS
SPECIAL AGENT JUSTIN GARNER;
SPECIAL AGENT GREG HARPER;
SPECIAL AGENT ADENDREA;
and SPECIAL AGENT JOHN DOE 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Jason Shawn Pettit, filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 	Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 	Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States
District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
Recommendation.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initially filed his Complaint on July 24, 2025, along with a Motion to Proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). 	(ECF Nos. 1-2). 	The Court needed further information to rule upon
Plaintiff’s IFP Application and Plaintiff provided that information on August 13, 2025. (ECF No.
6). 	Plaintiff also filed an Amended Complaint on August 13, 2025. 	(ECF No. 5). 	The Court
granted Plaintiff IFP status on September 8, 2025. (ECF No. 9).
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim on November 10, 2025.
(ECF No. 19). The Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to respond to this Motion to Dismiss
by December 3, 2025. 	(ECF No. 21). 	In this Order, Plaintiff was also advised that failure to
Case 4:25-cv-04059-SOH Document 24 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
respond to the Motion to Dismiss would result in dismissal of this action. 	Id. 	This Order was
mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record and was not returned as undeliverable mail. Plaintiff failed
to respond.
On December 4, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show cause ordering Plaintiff to show
cause why he failed to respond to the Court’s November 12, 2025 Order. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff
was again advised that failure to respond would subject this case to dismissal. Id. This Order was
mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record, and it was not returned as undeliverable mail. 	Plaintiff
failed to respond.
Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since August 26, 2025 when he filed a
Motion to Enter Evidence. (ECF No. 8).
II. 	DISCUSSION
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 the
Case 4:25-cv-04059-SOH Document 24 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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).
Furthermore, a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) operates as an adjudication on the merits
unless it is otherwise specified. Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown, 806 F.2d at 803. In considering a
Rule 41(b) dismissal, the Court must balance: (1) “the degree of [Plaintiff’s] egregious conduct;”
(2) the adverse impact of the conduct on the Defendants; and (3) the Court’s ability to administer
justice. 	Rodgers v. Curators of University of Missouri, 135 F.3d 1216, 1219 (8th Cir. 1998)
(internal quotations omitted). In Rodgers, the Eighth Circuit provides the standard the Court must
consider before dismissing with prejudice for failure to prosecute:
Dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction and should be used only in
cases of willful disobedience of a court order or . . . persistent failure to
prosecute a complaint. 	[The Court must consider] . . . whether in the
particular circumstances of the case, the needs of the court in advancing a
crowded docket and preserving respect for the integrity of its internal
procedures are sufficient to justify the harsh consequences of forever
denying a litigant of his day in court. However, the [Court] need not [find]
that appellant acted in bad faith, only that he acted intentionally as opposed
to accidentally or involuntarily.
Id.
As evidenced by the docket, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders to
respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 	However, the Court does not find dismissal with
prejudice is warranted here. 	Accordingly, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Orders.
Case 4:25-cv-04059-SOH Document 24 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the
Court hereby recommends Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
REFERRAL STATUS: The referral in this case shall be terminated.
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 5th day of February 2026.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HON. SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04059-SOH Document 24 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>