Hicks v. ORCU

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
ANTONIO HICKS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:25-cv-06139-SOH-MEF
ORCU
(Malvern) 	DEFENDANT
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 United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey 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 obey three Court
Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Mr. Hicks was named as a Plaintiff in a multi-plaintiff case filed in the Eastern District of
Arkansas. (ECF No. 1). Individual cases were opened for each named Defendant in the Eastern
District, and then the case was transferred to this District on December 29, 2025. (ECF No. 3).
On January 12, 2026, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) application or pay the filing fee by February 2, 2026. (ECF No. 5). The Court also entered
an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint by February 2, 2026. (ECF No. 6).
When Plaintiff failed to submit an IFP application or pay the filing fee, and he also failed to submit
an Amended Complaint, the Court entered a Show Cause Order. 	(ECF No. 7). 	Plaintiff was
directed to respond by February 24, 2026. (Id.). All three Orders advised Plaintiff that failure to
Case 6:25-cv-06139-SOH Document 8 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
respond would result in the dismissal of his case. None of these Orders were returned as
undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not submitted a response to any of the three Orders. Nor has
he communicated with the Court since the case was transferred to this District.
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 three Court Orders. 	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 6:25-cv-06139-SOH Document 8 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 	it 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	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 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 18th day of March 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-06139-SOH Document 8 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>