Harris v. Caddo County Sheriff's Department et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ELIJAH S. HARRIS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1541-PRW
)
CADDO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 	)
DEPARTMENT, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner, filed an action alleging violation(s) of his civil
rights. (Doc. 1). United States District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick referred the matter to the
undersigned 	Magistrate 	Judge 	for 	initial 	proceedings 	consistent 	with 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
636(b)(1)(B)-(C). (Doc. 3). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends
that the court DISMISS this action without prejudice to the re-filing.
On December 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “‘Judicial Notice’ Pursuant to 4[2] U.S.C. §
1983 Civil Rights Complaint.” 	(Doc. 1). 	Instead of serving as the Plaintiff’s complaint,
as is required to initiate a civil action, this document requested that the applicable statute
of limitations for a forthcoming § 1983 claim be tolled. 	(See generally id.) 	Moreover,
Plaintiff did not either pay the $405.00 filing fee or file a proper application to proceed in
forma pauperis. 	On January 7, 2026, the court ordered Plaintiff to (1) file a proper
complaint and (2) either pay the filing fee or file a compliant application to proceed in
Case 5:25-cv-01541-PRW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
forma pauperis on or before January 28, 2026. (Doc. 4, at 3). Plaintiff was warned that
“[f]ailure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id.)
To date, Plaintiff has failed to cure either requirement as ordered. Furthermore, he
has failed to show good cause for his failure to do so, or to request an extension of time to
comply with the court’s order. 	Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), if a
plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order,” the court may
dismiss the action. The Tenth Circuit “ha[s] consistently interpreted Rule 41(b) to permit
courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.” 	Huggins v.
Supreme Court of the United States, 480 F. App’x 915, 916-17 (10th Cir. 2012) (quotations
omitted). 	If the dismissal is without prejudice, the court generally need not follow any
“particular procedures” in entering the dismissal order. AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas
E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009); see also Robledo-
Valdez v. Smelser, 593 F. App’x 771, 775 (10th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a district court
may, without abusing its powers, dismiss a case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)
without attention to any particular procedures).
Plaintiff’s failures leave the court unable “to achieve [an] orderly and expeditious”
resolution of this action. 	Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962) (discussing
the inherent power of a court to dismiss suits for lack of prosecution on its own initiative).
As outlined above, the court has provided Plaintiff sufficient notice of the possibility of
dismissal, as well as an additional response opportunity through objection to this Report
and Recommendation. Thus, considering the court’s right and responsibility to manage its
cases, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s Order, (Doc.
Case 5:25-cv-01541-PRW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
4), warrants a recommendation that the court DISMISS this action without prejudice to the
re-filing.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this Report
and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before February 23, 2026, under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The undersigned also advises Plaintiff
that failure to make a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right
to appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore v. United
States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge unless and until the matter is re-referred.
ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01541-PRW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3