Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_23-cv-02104/USCOURTS-arwd-2_23-cv-02104-0/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

FORT SMITH DIVISION

CHAD ALLEN HOLLINGSWORTH PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:23-CV-02104-TLB-MEF

SHERIFF JOHNNY CROCKER

(Franklin County, Arkansas), et. al. DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, 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 two Court Orders and failure to prosecute 

this case. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 3, 2023. (ECF No. 1). On July 10, 2024, 

Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 28). The next day, the Court 

entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit his Summary Judgment Response by August 1, 2024. 

(ECF No. 31). When Plaintiff failed to submit his Response, the Court entered a Show Cause 

Order directing Plaintiff to respond by August 26, 2024. (ECF No. 32). 

Neither Order was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the 

Motion for Summary Judgment, nor has he communicated with the Court since December 22, 

2023. (ECF No. 23). 

Case 2:23-cv-02104-TLB Document 34 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

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 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.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Case 2:23-cv-02104-TLB Document 34 Filed 09/11/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

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 11th day of September 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02104-TLB Document 34 Filed 09/11/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>