Harmon v. Youngman et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
SETH ALLYN HARMON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06109-SOH-MEF
OFFICER CAMERON YOUNGMAN, 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 Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred
this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. Currently
before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Court Order. (ECF
No. 38).
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 8, 2024. 	(ECF No. 1). 	Among other claims,
Plaintiff alleged a denial of medical care while incarcerated in the Hot Springs County Detention
Center. (Id.). The case underwent mandatory preservice screening, and Sheriff Scott Finkbeiner
was terminated as a party in the case on November 1, 2024. (ECF No. 10).
On September 24, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Extend the Discovery and
Dispositive Motion deadlines in the case. (ECF No. 31). As grounds for their request, Defendants
noted that Plaintiff had failed to provide a signed medical authorization. (Id.). This Motion was
granted, and the deadlines were extended to January 15, 2026, and February 16, 2026, respectively.
(ECF No. 32). 	On November 3, 2025, Defendants submitted a Motion to Compel, stating that
Plaintiff had not responded to their supplemental discovery requests. (ECF No. 33). On December
22, 2025, Defendants submitted an Amended Motion to Compel, stating that they had received
Case 6:24-cv-06109-SOH Document 40 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
some supplemental responses from Plaintiff, but those responses were deficient. (ECF No. 35).
More specifically, they noted that “Plaintiff has not provided the names of doctors and hospitals
where he has received treatment for his alleged injuries in this case, as well as his past medical
history.” (Id. at 1). The Amended Motion to Compel was granted on January 5, 2026. The initial
Motion to Compel was denied as moot. 	(ECF No. 37). 	Plaintiff was directed to submit his
discovery responses to Defendants within 14 days, making them due no later than January 19,
2026. The case deadlines were extended to February 16, 2026, and March 16, 2026. (Id.).
On February 2, 2026, Defendants submitted their Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 38). They
note that the deadline for Plaintiff to supply the required discovery responses has passed, and
Plaintiff has not provided the required responses. (Id.).
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
Case 6:24-cv-06109-SOH Document 40 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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 repeatedly failed to submit discovery responses in this case. Plaintiff has now
failed to comply with a Court Order concerning that discovery. Plaintiff has, therefore, 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
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Comply with Court Order (ECF No. 38) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been
recommended for dismissal in 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 a 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 4th day of February 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06109-SOH Document 40 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>