UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SUPASTAR WARE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01168-SRW
)
LT UNKNOWN WALLACE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff Supastar
Ware, also known as Lamont Ware, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil
rights violations. ECF No. 1. On January 21, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis and ordered her to file an amended complaint on a Court-provided form. ECF
No. 17. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that her failure to timely comply with the Order would result
in dismissal of her case without further notice. Plaintiff’s response was due by February 20, 2026.
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time to
do so. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, she was cautioned that her
case would be dismissed if she failed to timely comply, and she was given ample time to comply.
The Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the Court’s January 21, 2026, Order and her failure to prosecute her case. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the authority of a court
to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the
power to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate
order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.