Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_24-cv-06097/USCOURTS-arwd-6_24-cv-06097-0/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

MICHAEL DEWAINE BOMAN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:24-cv-06097-SOH-BAB

WARDEN WALT WHITE, et. al. 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 July 22, 2024. (ECF No. 1). The Order granting him in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) status advised Plaintiff that he must immediately inform the Court of any 

address change or his case would be dismissed. (ECF No. 3). 

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Address Change indicating he had been 

released from custody. (ECF No. 6). Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the 

case, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit a new IFP application to indicate his 

free-world financial status. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff was directed to return the completed IFP form 

by August 15, 2024. (Id.). When Plaintiff failed to do so, the Court entered a Show Cause Order 

directing Plaintiff to show cause for his failure to obey a Court Order by September 25, 2024. 

(ECF No. 8). On September 25, 2024, the Show Cause Order was returned as undeliverable. (ECF 

Case 6:24-cv-06097-SOH Document 10 Filed 11/15/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

No. 9). The deadline for Plaintiff to inform the Court of his new address was set for October 25, 

2024. (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has failed to advise the Court of his new address and has failed to 

submit the required IFP application. 

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 keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local 

Rule 5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff has failed to comply with two 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.

Case 6:24-cv-06097-SOH Document 10 Filed 11/15/24 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 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 15th day of November 2024. 

/s/ Barry A. Bryant

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:24-cv-06097-SOH Document 10 Filed 11/15/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>