Reece v. Norwood et al

Filing 20

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; plaintiff failed to comply with court orders. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on September 22, 2017. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

CARLOS R. REECE

V.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-01003

DAVID NORWOOD; DOUG WOODS;
SHERRI MENDENALL;
JAMES BOLTON; and
BRYAN BURNS

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Carlos R. Reece’s failure to obey an order of the Court. On
January 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ECF No. 2. On January 11, 2017, the case was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado
Division. ECF No. 4. On August 10, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
ECF No. 16. On August 15, 2017, the Court filed an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to
Defendants’ motion on or before August 30, 2017. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff was advised in the order
that failure to respond within the required period of time may result in the dismissal of his case.
Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s last communication with the Court was
on February 8, 2017. ECF No. 10.
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.

1

1984). Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states 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).
In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order of the Court. Therefore,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that
this case should be dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of September, 2017.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

2