Boman v. Zimmerman et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
MICHAEL DEWAINE BOMAN 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06079-SOH-MEF
PAROLE OFFICER ZIMMERMAN, 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 Court Orders and failure to prosecute this
case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 31, 2024. (ECF No. 1). The Order granting him in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) status advised Plaintiff that he must immediately inform the Court of any
address change, or his case would be dismissed. (ECF No. 3).
On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Address Change indicating he had been
released from custody. (ECF No. 6). Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the
case, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit a new IFP application to indicate his
free-world financial status. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff was directed to return the completed IFP form
by August 15, 2024. (Id.). When Plaintiff failed to do so, the Court entered a Show Cause Order
directing Plaintiff to show cause for his failure to obey a Court Order by September 25, 2024.
(ECF No. 8). On September 25, 2024, the Show Cause Order was returned as undeliverable. (ECF
Case 6:24-cv-06079-SOH Document 10 Filed 11/18/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
No. 9). The deadline for Plaintiff to inform the Court of his new address was set for October 25,
2024. (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has failed to advise the Court of his new address and has failed to
submit the required IFP application.
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 comply with two Court Orders. 	Plaintiff has failed to
prosecute this matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local
Case 6:24-cv-06079-SOH Document 10 Filed 11/18/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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
For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that Plaintiff Complaint (ECF No. 1) be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been
recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
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 18th day of November 2024.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06079-SOH Document 10 Filed 11/18/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>