Horn v. Peterson et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
DUSTIN LEMUEL HORN 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06049-SOH-MEF
MRS. PETERSON, et. al. 	DEFENDANTS
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, Chief 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 a Court Order and failure to prosecute this
case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application were provisionally filed
on (ECF No. 1). On April 24, 2024, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff IFP status and
directing him to pay the filing fee by May 14, 2024. (ECF No. 5). This Order was not returned as
undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee and has not asked for an extension
to do so. Instead, he prematurely filed two discovery motions. (ECF Nos. 6, 7).
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
Case 6:24-cv-06049-SOH Document 8 Filed 05/21/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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
The Plaintiff, having been denied IFP status and ordered to pay the filing fee, has failed to
comply with a Court Order to pay the filing fee for this case. 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.
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
Case 6:24-cv-06049-SOH Document 8 Filed 05/21/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 21st day of May 2024.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06049-SOH Document 8 Filed 05/21/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>