Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04069/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04069-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gina Butler
Defendant
Cody Allen Preskitt
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

CODY ALLEN PRESKITT PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:24-cv-04069-SOH-CDC

JAIL ADMINISTRATOR GINA BUTLER DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. (ECF No. 13). 

Plaintiff has not responded and his time to do so has passed. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District 

Judge, referred the instant motion to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and 

Recommendation. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Cody Allen Preskitt, originally submitted this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action pro se on 

July 2, 2024, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). (ECF 

Nos. 1-2). The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Application on the same day. (ECF No. 3). In this 

Order, Plaintiff was specifically advised:

Plaintiff is advised that he is required to immediately inform the Court of any change of 

address. If Plaintiff is transferred to another jail or prison or released, he shall have 

30 days from the date of transfer or release in which to notify the Court of his new 

address . . . Failure to inform the Court of an address change shall result in the 

dismissal of this case. 

(ECF No. 3) (emphasis in original). 

Case 4:24-cv-04069-SOH Document 16 Filed 11/13/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

On August 22, 2024, mail sent to Plaintiff by the Court, at his address of record, was 

returned as undeliverable mail. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff was provided thirty days to inform the 

Court of his new address pursuant to the Court’s July 2, 2024 Order. Plaintiff failed to respond 

with his new address, and Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since initially filing his 

Complaint.

On October 22, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss arguing Plaintiff has 

not complied with the Locals Rules and has failed to prosecute this matter. (ECF Nos. 13-15). 

Plaintiff did not respond.

II. DISCUSSION

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 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).

Case 4:24-cv-04069-SOH Document 16 Filed 11/13/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

Furthermore, a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) operates as an adjudication on the merits 

unless it is otherwise specified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown, 806 F.2d at 803. In considering a 

Rule 41(b) dismissal, the Court must balance: (1) “the degree of [Plaintiff’s] egregious conduct;” 

(2) the adverse impact of the conduct on the Defendants; and (3) the Court’s ability to administer 

justice. Rodgers v. Curators of University of Missouri, 135 F.3d 1216, 1219 (8th Cir. 1998) 

(internal quotations omitted). In Rodgers, the Eighth Circuit provides the standard the Court must 

consider before dismissing with prejudice for failure to prosecute:

Dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction and should be used only in cases of willful 

disobedience of a court order or . . . persistent failure to prosecute a complaint. [The Court 

must consider] . . . whether in the particular circumstances of the case, the needs of the 

court in advancing a crowded docket and preserving respect for the integrity of its internal 

procedures are sufficient to justify the harsh consequences of forever denying a litigant of 

his day in court. However, the [Court] need not [find] that appellant acted in bad faith, 

only that he acted intentionally as opposed to accidentally or involuntarily. 

Id.

As evidenced by the docket, Plaintiff has completely failed to prosecute this case and 

comply with the Court’s Orders. Plaintiff failed to keep the Court informed of his current address

as ordered, and he failed to defend against Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. However, the Court 

does not find dismissal with prejudice is warranted here. 

III. CONCLUSION

Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the 

Court hereby recommends Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) be granted, and Plaintiff’s 

Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Case 4:24-cv-04069-SOH Document 16 Filed 11/13/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
4 

REFERRAL STATUS: The referral in this case shall be terminated.

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 13th day of November 2024. 

/s/ Christy Comstock

HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:24-cv-04069-SOH Document 16 Filed 11/13/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>