Hansen v. Watson et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Case Without Prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on August 17, 2015. (src)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

WILLIAM HANSEN

v.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-05280

NURSE DARLA WATSON;
DR. WARREN LAFFERTY;
SHERIFF KELLY CRADDUCK; and
JOHN OR JANE DOE NURSING
STAFF

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Comes on for consideration the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 22)
filed in this case on June 15, 2015, by the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States
Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, regarding Plaintiff William Hansen's
failure to respond to the Magistrate Judge's Show Cause Order (Doc. 21 ). Also before the
Court is Hansen's Objection to the R & R (Doc. 23). 1 The Court has conducted a de nova
review as to all specific proposed findings and recommendations to which Hansen has
raised objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court finds that the R & R
should be, and hereby is, ADOPTED.
On March 25, 2015, Hansen filed a Motion of Extension of Time (Doc. 19) to
"adequately investigate this present case." The Magistrate Judge construed this as a
motion to file an amended complaint, and on April 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered
an Order (Doc. 20) granting Hansen until May 8, 2014 to file an amended complaint. The

1

The Court interprets Hansen's "Petition to Show Just Cause" (Doc. 23) as an
Objection to the R & R.

Order notes that no further extensions will be granted without good cause shown as the
case has been pending since September 8, 2014. On May 15, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 21) requiring Hansen to demonstrate to the Court
by May 29, 2015, why his case should not be dismissed. Hansen failed to respond.
The Magistrate Judge now recommends dismissal of Hansen's Complaint with
prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the Court and failure to prosecute pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b). Hansen filed his Objection to the R & R, which he titled "Petition
to Show Just Cause," on July 1, 2015, more than 30 days after the Magistrate Judge's
Show Cause Order. Hansen explains that he has difficulty writing due to the progression
of his rheumatoid arthritis. Although Hansen was able to file objections (Doc. 23), he has
still not filed an amended complaint. Hansen's case should be dismissed pursuant to Fed .

R. Civ. P. 41 (b) because he has failed to prosecute his case and in so doing has failed to
comply with this Court's Orders. Although such matters may ordinarily be dismissed with
prejudice2 , the Court will accept Hansen's medical impairment explanation at face value.
This case is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE . The Court, being well and
sufficiently advised, finds that the R & R (Doc. 22) should be and hereby is ADOPTED.

PREJUDICE.

TIMOTHY . BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

See Holly v. Anderson, 467 F.3d 1120, 1120 (8th Cir. 2006) ("A district court may
sua sponte dismiss an action under Rule 41 (b) forthe plaintiff's deliberate failure to comply
with a court order.")

2