Snow v. Correct Care Solutions LLC et al

Filing 55

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to obey Court Orders and failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on April 16, 2018. (hnc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION DAVID C. SNOW v. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 6:16-cv-06083 CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et. al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court Orders and to prosecute this case. I. BACKGROUND On February 15, 2018, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 53) directing Plaintiff to provide a Response to the Summary Judgment Motions filed by Defendants. (ECF Nos. 47, 50). Plaintiff was ordered to provide his Response by March 2, 2018. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff was advised that failure to timely and properly comply with the Order would result in Defendants’ Statement of Facts (ECF No. 52) being deemed admitted or in the dismissal of his case. This Order was not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 12, 2018, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause for failing to obey the Order of the Court by April 2, 2018. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond by the deadline would result in the dismissal of his case. (ECF No. 54). This Order was not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff again failed to respond. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since October 17, 2017, when he entered into a Joint Motion for Dismissal of several Defendants. (ECF No. 42). 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 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 two Court Orders. 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. For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of April 2018. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P. K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?