Scott v. Wallace et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 8 Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 10/6/14. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LOUIS BERNARDO SCOTT, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O WALLACE et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-543-R

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Charles B. Goodwin entered August 15, 2014. Doc. No. 8. Plaintiff has filed an
Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion in the Report and Recommendation. Doc.
No. 9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Court reviews the Report and
Recommendation de novo in light of Plaintiff’s objections.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing this action without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s
failure to cure deficiencies in his pleadings. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is not
personally signed, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). Doc. No. 5, at 45. Plaintiff also failed to identify a claim with supporting facts that underlies his § 1983
action. Doc. No. 5, at 3-4.
The Magistrate Judge twice ordered Plaintiff to sign his pleading, once after he
filed his initial Complaint, and a second time after filing the Amended Complaint. Doc.
No. 4; Doc. No. 7. Plaintiff was also ordered to “specify an understandable claim or

2

claims through supporting facts” after filing his Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 7, at 2.
The Magistrate Judge noted in his second Order that this would be Plaintiff’s “final
opportunity to cure the deficiencies,” and that he must do so by submitting a new
complaint no later than August 4, 2014. Id. Plaintiff was also told that “[f]ailure to
comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action.” Id. As of August 15,
2014, Plaintiff had not submitted a new complaint or requested an extension of time to do
so.
The Court may dismiss an action sua sponte if a plaintiff fails to comply with a
court order. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir.
2003) (“Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to
dismiss, the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte
for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court’s
orders.”) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). Moreover, when
dismissing without prejudice, the Court need not consider any particular factors.
AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th
Cir. 2009) (“When dismissing a case without prejudice, ‘a district court may, without
abusing its discretion, enter such an order without attention to any particular
procedures.’” (citation omitted)).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with two Orders directing him to cure the
deficiencies in his Complaint and Amended Complaint, and does not provide a reason for
his noncompliance in his Objection. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the

2

3

Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED, as supplemented herein, and Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint [Doc. No. 5] is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2014.

3