Philpott v. Sebastian County Sheriff's Department et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
ROBERT PHILPOTT 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 2:25-cv-02141-TLB-MEF
SEBASTIAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE;
ALL KNOWN AND UNKNOWN SHERIFFS AND
DEPUTY SHERIFFS OF THE YEAR 1997;
EMPLOYEES OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY ADULT
DETENTION CENTER 	DEFENDANTS
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 pursuant to General Order 2024-02, but not all parties to the
action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly,
the case will automatically be reassigned to Chief United States District Judge Timothy L. Brooks
and referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee
and failure to prosecute this case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on November 3, 2025. (ECF No. 1). He was granted in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) status that same day. (ECF No. 3). After Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint
on December 15, 2025, an additional review of Plaintiff’s federal cases revealed that Plaintiff has
had at least three cases, filed when he was incarcerated or detained, which were dismissed as
frivolous or as failing to state a claim. (ECF No. 25). 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP status was
revoked on January 30, 2026. (Id.). Plaintiff was directed to pay the filing fee by February 19,
2026. (Id. at 2). He was advised that failure to pay the filing fee by the deadline would result in
Case 2:25-cv-02141-DCF Document 26 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
the dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute. 	(Id.). 	This Order was not returned as
undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, and he has not otherwise communicated
with the Court.
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 comply with a Court Order to pay the filing fee for this case. Plaintiff
has, therefore, 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 2:25-cv-02141-DCF Document 26 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24)
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 a 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 17th day of March 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02141-DCF Document 26 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>