Richard v. Hot Springs City Police Dept et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER W. RICHARD 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06159
HOT SPRINGS CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O.
Hickory, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose
of making a Report and Recommendation. Before the Court is a Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
orders of the Court.
Plaintiff filed this action pro se on December 10, 2024. 	ECF No. 1. 	His application to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was granted on December 10, 2024, with the matter of service
to be determined at a later date. ECF No. 5.
On December 13, 2024, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint within twenty-one (21) days. 	ECF No. 6. 	This was because after review of the
Complaint, it was determined the Plaintiff had not clearly stated how each named Defendant had
violated his federal constitutional rights, and some of his claims may have been frivolous. Plaintiff
was ordered to write short, plain statements telling the Court: the constitutional right Plaintiff
believes was violated; the name of the Defendant who violated the right; exactly what the
Defendant did or failed to do; how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the
violation of the constitutional rights; and what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of the
Case 6:24-cv-06159-SOH Document 7 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
misconduct of that Defendant. Id. Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court Order and has not
filed an Amended Complaint.
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). 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 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).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order to file an Amended Complaint.
Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), I recommend 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
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 14th day of January 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06159-SOH Document 7 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>