Simpson v. Arkansas Department of Corrections

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
MITCHELL SIMPSON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:25-cv-05009-TLB-CDC
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 	DEFENDANT
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. 	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 this case on January 16, 2025. 	(ECF No. 1). 	Because he failed to utilize
the Court’s approved section 1983 complaint form, Plaintiff was directed to file an Amended
Complaint by February 7, 2025. 	(ECF No. 2). 	Plaintiff was also directed to submit a complete
application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) or pay the $405 filing fee by February 7, 2025. 	Id.
Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of the
case. 	Id.
The Court received return mail on January 29, 2025, January 31, 2025, and February 6,
2025. 	(ECF No. 4, 6, & 7). 	However, all mail was recent to Plaintiff’s updated address. 	(ECF
No. 5).
Case 5:25-cv-05009-TLB Document 10 Filed 03/11/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff did not file the Amended Complaint, an IFP application, or pay the filing fee. 	To
ensure procedural fairness, a Show Cause Order was entered on February 11, 2025. 	(ECF No. 9).
Plaintiff was given until March 4, 2025, to show cause why he had failed to obey the Orders of the
Court. 	Id. 	Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond to the Order “shall” subject the case to
dismissal. 	Id. 	The Show Cause Order was not returned as undeliverable. 	Plaintiff has not
responded to the Court’s Orders. 	(ECF No. 2 & 9). 	In each Order Plaintiff was advised that
failure to respond would result in the dismissal of the case.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with an order of the court. 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); Line 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).
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), the Plaintiff’s 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). 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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 5:25-cv-05009-TLB Document 10 Filed 03/11/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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 11th day of March 2025.
s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05009-TLB Document 10 Filed 03/11/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>