Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_24-cv-06032/USCOURTS-arwd-6_24-cv-06032-1/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

JOSHUA TERRELL BELL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:24-cv-06032-SOH-CDC

FIELD MAJOR TRISTAN HEAD DEFENDANT

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 Defendant Head’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure 

to State a Claim. (ECF No. 16). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order 

and failure to prosecute this case. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on March 11, 2024. (ECF 

No. 1). It was transferred to this District on March 18, 2024. (ECF No. 4). On March 26, 2024, 

the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to correct 

deficiencies in his original Complaint. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff did so on April 5, 2024. (ECF No. 

8). 

Defendant Head filed his Motion to Dismiss on May 9, 2024. (ECF No. 16). On May 10, 

2024, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file a Response or an Amended Complaint 

by May 31, 2024. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Order would 

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

Case 6:24-cv-06032-SOH Document 19 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

Plaintiff has failed to file either a Response or an Amended Complaint, and has not otherwise 

communicated with the Court. 

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 a Court Order. 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-06032-SOH Document 19 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

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 26th day of June 2024.

/s/ Christy Comstock

HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:24-cv-06032-SOH Document 19 Filed 06/26/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>