Stuart v. Smith et al

Filing 21

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on November 13, 2018. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
GERRAL SCHRAY STUART
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:18-cv-04006

CORPORAL SMITH, Miller
County Detention Center (MCDC);
SERGEANT PATTERSON, MCDC; and
OFFICER WHITESIDE, MCDC

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Gerral Schray Stuart’s failure to obey a Court order. Plaintiff
filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on January 10, 2018. (ECF No. 1). On October 5, 2018,
Defendants Sergeant Patterson, Corporal Smith and Officer Whiteside filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 16). That same day, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a
Response to Defendants’ motion on or before October 26, 2018. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff was
advised in this order that failure to respond by the Court’s imposed deadline would subject this
case to dismissal, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). To date, that order (ECF
No. 20) has not been returned to the Court as undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not responded to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
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). Moreover, 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 district
court possesses 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).
Plaintiff has failed to obey 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. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of November 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

2