Carrier v. Robison et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER MARK CARRIER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:23-cv-05133-TLB-MEF
HEAD NURSE TRACEY ROBISON,
Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC;
SHERIFF SHAWN HOLLOWAY,
Benton County, Arkansas;
BENTON COUNTY, AR; and
TURN KEY HEALTH CLINICS, LLC 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiff proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis. 	Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the
Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned
for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. 	The case is before the Court on
Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s Orders.
I. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed his Complaint to initiate this action on August 15, 2023. 	(ECF No. 1). 	An
initial scheduling order was issued on September 9, 2024. 	(ECF No. 71). 	On February 6, 2025,
Orders were entered extending the summary judgment filing deadline until February 20, 2025.
(ECF Nos. 74, 76).
On February 20, 2025, Defendants Robison and Turn Key Health Clinics timely filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. 	(ECF Nos. 78-80). 	Defendants Holloway and Benton County
also timely filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. 	(ECF Nos. 81-83). 	On February 24, 2025,
Case 5:23-cv-05133-TLB Document 87 Filed 04/15/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Orders were entered directing Plaintiff to respond each of the summary judgment motions by
March 17, 2025. 	(ECF Nos. 84, 85). 	Plaintiff was given explicit instructions regarding what was
required by him to file a response in accordance with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 	In the same Orders, Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond to the Order would
result in: (a) all the facts set forth by the Defendants in the summary judgment papers being deemed
admitted and/or (b) the case would be subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff failed to respond to either Motion. 	As a matter of procedural fairness and to give
Plaintiff yet another opportunity to comply with the Court’s Orders, on March 18, 2025, a Show
Cause Order was entered. 	(ECF No. 86). 	Plaintiff was given until April 8, 2025, to show cause
why he failed to obey the Orders of the Court. 	Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to respond
to the Show Cause Order, the case shall be subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff did not file a response to either of the summary judgment motions. 	He did not
respond to the Show Cause Order. 	Plaintiff did not request an extension of time to respond to the
motions or the Show Cause Order. 	No mail has been returned as undeliverable.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders (ECF Nos. 84, 85, 86). 	Plaintiff was
advised in each of the above-mentioned Orders that failure to comply would subject the case to
dismissal.
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 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 district court
Case 5:23-cv-05133-TLB Document 87 Filed 04/15/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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.
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. 	When
considering 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.
Here, Defendants expended resources conducting discovery and preparing their respective
Motions for Summary Judgment. 	Plaintiff then intentionally chose not to respond to these
Motions even after being directed to do so by the Court in two separate instances. 	Plaintiff was
advised in three separate Court Orders that failure to respond would result in dismissal of his case.
Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court in any way. 	The last document filed by Plaintiff
Case 5:23-cv-05133-TLB Document 87 Filed 04/15/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
was on May 6, 2024. 	No mail has been returned as undeliverable.
II. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s
intentional 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).
Status of Referral: The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and
Recommendation.
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 15th day of April 2025.
/s/	
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:23-cv-05133-TLB Document 87 Filed 04/15/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>