Clampit v. Bratten

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JASON KALE CLAMPIT 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:24-cv-05083-TLB-CDC
SERGEANT JACOB ALLEN, Washington
County Detention Center (WCDC); SERGEANT
WILL FOSTER, WCDC; SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL,
Washington County, Arkansas; and CHAPLAIN
CRAIG BRATTEN, WCDC 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 	Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and
(3), the Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, 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 Court’s Orders.
I. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed his Complaint to initiate this action on April 5, 2024. 	(ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center (“WCDC”). 	Defendants
were served and filed their answers. 	(ECF Nos. 10-11).
Thereafter, a Bench Order was issued on June 6, 2024. 	(ECF No. 12). 	If they intended
to rely on a defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Defendants were advised they
must raise the issue by filing a summary judgment motion by no later than August 5, 2024. 	Id.
On June 12, 2024, mail sent to the Plaintiff at the WCDC was returned to the Court as
Case 5:24-cv-05083-TLB Document 26 Filed 02/25/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
undeliverable. 	(ECF No. 14). 	Having knowledge that Plaintiff had been sent for a psychiatric
examination in his criminal case, United States v. Clampit, 5:24-cr-50010-1, the Court entered an
Order staying and administratively terminating this civil rights case. 	(ECF No. 15). 	Once the
psychiatric examination was complete, this case was reopened. 	(ECF No. 16).
On October 30, 2024, the Court was able to verify that Plaintiff had returned to the custody
of the WCDC. 	(ECF No. 18). 	The Defendants were given an extension of time until January 6,
2025, to file a summary judgment motion on the issue of exhaustion. 	Id. 	If they did not intend
to pursue a failure to exhaust defense, Defendants were advised to immediately notify the Court
so that an initial scheduling order could be entered. 	Id.
On January 6, 2025, Separate Defendants Allen, Foster, and Cantrell timely filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. 	(ECF Nos. 20-22). 	The next day, an Order was entered directing
Plaintiff to respond to the summary judgment motion by January 28, 2025. 	(ECF No. 23).
Plaintiff was given explicit instructions regarding what was required by him to file a response in
accordance with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	In the same Order, Plaintiff
was advised that failure to respond to the Order would result in his claims being dismissed.
On January 7, 2025, Separate Defendant Batten filed a “response” to the Motion for
Summary Judgment. 	(ECF No. 24). 	The response indicates he does not oppose the Motion and
joins the Motion. 	Id.
Plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 	On January 30,
2025, a Show Cause Order was entered. 	(ECF No. 25). 	Plaintiff was given until February 20,
2025, to show cause why he failed to obey the Orders of the Court. 	Plaintiff was advised that if
he failed to respond to the Show Cause Order, the case shall be subject to dismissal.
Case 5:24-cv-05083-TLB Document 26 Filed 02/25/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment
or a response to the Show Cause Order. 	He has not requested an extension of time to file his
responses. 	No mail has been returned as undeliverable. 	Plaintiff has failed to comply with the
Court’s Orders (ECF Nos. 23 & 25). 	Plaintiff was advised in each of the above-mentioned Orders
that failure to comply would subject the case to dismissal.
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 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 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
For these reasons, it is recommended that, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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).
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
Case 5:24-cv-05083-TLB Document 26 Filed 02/25/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by
the district court.
Status of Referral: 	The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and
Recommendation.
RECOMMENDED this 25 th day of February 2025.
s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-05083-TLB Document 26 Filed 02/25/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>