Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_24-cv-06009/USCOURTS-arwd-6_24-cv-06009-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

LEE NICHOLAS LOFTON, SR. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:24-cv-06009-SOH-CDC

JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JOEL. R. WARE; 

FOOD ADMINISTRATOR JESSIE 

HUNDHAUSEN;

SHERIFF MIKE McCORMICK;

DEPUTY KING (All of Garland County 

Detention Center) DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 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 February 5, 2024. (ECF No. 1). That same day, the Court 

entered an Order directing him to submit a completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. (ECF 

No. 2). He was also ordered to submit an Amended Complaint to address deficiencies in his 

original Complaint. (Id.). When Plaintiff submitted only an untimely and incomplete IFP 

application by the deadline, the Court entered a Show Cause Order. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff 

Case 6:24-cv-06009-SOH Document 44 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

submitted an Amended Complaint on March 25, 2024. (ECF No. 7). He subsequently submitted 

a completed IFP application and was granted IFP status on April 22, 2024. (ECF Nos. 9, 10). 

Defendants filed their Joint Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust 

Administrative Remedies on August 26, 2024. (ECF No. 30). On August 28, 2024, the Court 

entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit his Summary Judgment Response by September 18, 

2024. (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff was advised that failure to submit his Response by the deadline 

would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id.). 

On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Extension of Time to Submit his 

Summary Judgment Response and his second Motion for Counsel in this case. (ECF Nos. 34, 35). 

The Motion for Counsel was denied. (ECF No. 36). The Motion for Extension was granted, and 

Plaintiff was given until October 2, 2024, to submit his Summary Judgment Response. (ECF No. 

37). On October 3, 2024, one day after the extended deadline, Plaintiff submitted a second Motion 

for Extension of Time and a third Motion for Counsel. (ECF Nos. 39, 40). Both motions were 

denied. (ECF No. 41, 42). On October 7, 2024, the Court entered a Show Cause Order, directing 

Plaintiff to Show Cause for his failure to submit his Summary Judgment Response by October 28, 

2024. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff was advised that failure to submit his Show Cause Response would 

result in the dismissal of his case. (Id.). This Order was not returned undeliverable. To date, 

Plaintiff has failed to submit both his Show Cause Response and his Summary Judgment Response. 

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 

Case 6:24-cv-06009-SOH Document 44 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

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 multiple Court Orders. Plaintiff has 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.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) 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 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 

Case 6:24-cv-06009-SOH Document 44 Filed 10/30/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court.

DATED this 30th day of October 2024.

/s/ Christy Comstock

HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:24-cv-06009-SOH Document 44 Filed 10/30/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>