Weeks v. Arkansas Division of Correction et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
PAUL MICHAEL WEEKS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06139-SOH-MEF
ARKANSAS DIVISION OF CORRECTION;
WARDEN JARED BYERS
(Superintendent/Warden, Ouachita River Unit,
ADC);
MARSHALL DALE REED
(Chief Deputy Director, ADC);
ARKANSAS BOARD OF CORRECTIONS 	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, Chief United States District Judge,
referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey two Court Orders and failure to prosecute
this case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on August 19, 2024. (ECF
No. 2). It was transferred to this District on November 5, 2024. (ECF No. 8). On November 13,
2024, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to address
several deficiencies in his original Complaint. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff was directed to submit his
Amended Complaint by December 4, 2024. (Id.). Plaintiff entered a Notice of Address change
on November 19, 2024, indicating that he was being transferred from the Ouachita River Unit of
the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) to the Grimes Unit. (ECF No. 12). He also entered
Case 6:24-cv-06139-SOH Document 15 Filed 01/29/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
a request for reassignment to a District Judge the same day. (ECF No. 13). When Plaintiff failed
to submit his Amended Complaint, the Court entered an Order on December 13, 2024, directing
him to Show Cause for his failure by January 3, 2025. (ECF No. 14). No mail has been returned
to the Court as undeliverable. Review of Plaintiff’s publicly available ADC records indicate he
was transferred to the Grimes Unit on December 3, 2024. 	Plaintiff was advised in both Orders
that failure to submit the required response by the deadline would result in the dismissal of his
case. (ECF Nos. 11, 14). To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit either his Amended Complaint or
his Show Cause Response, and he has not otherwise communicated with the Court.
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
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).
Case 6:24-cv-06139-SOH Document 15 Filed 01/29/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
III. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to comply with two Court Orders. Plaintiff has 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
For the reasons discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF
No. 2) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
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 29th day of January 2025.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06139-SOH Document 15 Filed 01/29/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>