Turner v. Washington County

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
CORY TURNER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:25-cv-05261-TLB-CDC
WASHINGTON COUNTY 	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 December 11, 2025, this Court received a handwritten letter from Plaintiff, which it
construed as a complaint regarding his incarceration at the Washington County Detention Center.
See ECF No. 1. 	This Court entered an Order that same day directing Plaintiff to either pay the
filing fee file or submit an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application by January 2, 2026, and to submit
an amended complaint on this Court’s approved form for prisoner § 1983 lawsuits by January 2,
2026. See ECF No. 2. The Court mailed blank copies of the aforementioned forms to Plaintiff.
See id. After this deadline passed with no filing fee, IFP application, or amended complaint having
been submitted, this Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to obey
Case 5:25-cv-05261-TLB Document 5 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
those Orders by January 30, 2026, and warning that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to respond by the deadline,
this case shall be subject to dismissal.” See ECF No. 4. Plaintiff never filed any response to the
show-cause Order, and none of this Court’s Orders have been returned as undeliverable.
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 5:25-cv-05261-TLB Document 5 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 5:25-cv-05261-TLB Document 5 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>