Savage v. Ashley County Circuit Court

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
LaSHANE SAVAGE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 1:25-cv-01077-SOH-CDC
ASHLEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; and
ARACELI MARTINEZ 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 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.
The case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the orders of the Court.
I. DISCUSSION
On December 19, 2025, the undersigned submitted a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) opining that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed on preservice screening under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a) for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. See ECF No. 12. Judge Hickey
declined to adopt that R&R. She agreed with the undersigned that “Plaintiff has no remedy under
§ 1983 until he successfully challenges his state court sentence.” See ECF No. 14, p. 3. However,
since it appeared that Plaintiff was attempting to seek habeas corpus relief when he filed his initial
complaint, she found that “Plaintiff should be provided with a Section 2254 Form so that he may
properly petition for writ of habeas corpus.” 	Id. at 4. 	Accordingly, Judge Hickey directed the
Clerk to send Plaintiff that form and to refer this case back to the undersigned for further review.
Id. 	Following that mailing and referral, the undersigned entered an Order directing Plaintiff to
submit a completed habeas petition by February 20, 2026, “failing which this matter will be subject
Case 1:25-cv-01077-SOH Document 16 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
to dismissal for failure to prosecute.” See ECF No. 15. The mailing of that Order was not returned
as undeliverable, but Plaintiff has not responded to it or submitted any habeas petition.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the
ground 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. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and orders
and for failure to prosecute this case.
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and his failure to obey the orders of the Court.
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.
DATED this 6th day of March 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01077-SOH Document 16 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>