Sorenson v. Burnett

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
DYLAN SAMUEL SORENSON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06145-MEF
CAPTAIN DUSTIN BURNETT
(Hot Spring County Detention Center) 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was directly assigned
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge; however, because not all parties to the action have consented
to the jurisdiction of the undersigned, and Plaintiff’s claims require dismissal, the Court enters its
findings as a Report and Recommendation and the case will automatically be reassigned to Chief
United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Rule 73 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and General Order 2024-02. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and his failure to prosecute this case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on November 7, 2024. (ECF No. 1). That same day the Court
entered an Order directing him to file a completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application by
December 2, 2024. (ECF No. 3). When Plaintiff failed to submit his IFP application, the Court
entered a Show Cause Order on December 6, 2024. (ECF No. 5). On December 23, 2024, mail
sent to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, and the deadline for him to inform the Court of his
new address was set for January 22, 2025. (ECF No. 7). To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide
both his new address and his IFP application to the Court.
Case 6:24-cv-06145-SOH Document 8 Filed 01/30/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 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 6:24-cv-06145-SOH Document 8 Filed 01/30/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) 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 30th day of January 2025.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06145-SOH Document 8 Filed 01/30/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>