Ballew v. Montgomery County Detention Center

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
WESLEY RAY BALLEW 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:25-cv-06077-SOH-MEF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER 	DEFENDANT
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 Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 5, 2025. (ECF No. 1). That same day, the Court
entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit a completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application
and an Amended Complaint by August 25, 2025. (ECF No. 3). 	When Plaintiff failed to submit
either document, the Court entered a Show Cause Order directing a response by September 17,
2025. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff responded to the Show Cause Order, stating that his complaint is
that his skull is fractured, and he needs an x-ray and a brain surgeon. (ECF No. 6). On September
24, 2025, the Court entered an Order directing the Clerk to resend the initial Order to Plaintiff.
The new deadline was set for October 15, 2025. (ECF No. 7). On October 23, 2025, the Court
entered a second Show Cause Order. 	(ECF No. 9). 	The deadline for Plaintiff to respond was
November 13, 2025. (Id.). On October 24, 2025, mail sent to Plaintiff at the Montgomery County
Jail was returned undeliverable. (ECF No. 10). The deadline for Plaintiff to inform the Court of
Case 6:25-cv-06077-SOH Document 11 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
his new address was set for November 24, 2025. (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has not submitted a new
address, an IFP application, or an Amended Complaint.
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).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local
Rule 5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order. 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.
Case 6:25-cv-06077-SOH Document 11 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 	it 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	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 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 14th day of January 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-06077-SOH Document 11 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>