Gray v. White

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION KELVIN DORNELL GRAY PLAINTIFF v. Civil No. 6:25-cv-6080-SOH-MEF WALTER WHITE (Warden, Omega Supervision Sanction Program), et. al. DEFENDANTS MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to General Order 2024-02, but not all parties to the action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, the case will automatically be reassigned to United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey and referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey two Court Orders and failure to prosecute this case. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 14, 2025. (ECF No. 1). He was granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status that same day. (ECF No. 3). He filed his Second Amended Complaint on September 5, 2025. (ECF No. 9). On September 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Address Change indicating he was no longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 13). In accordance with this District’s policies, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an IFP application reflecting his free-world financial status by October 8, 2025. (ECF No. 14). When Plaintiff failed to do so, the Court entered a Show Cause Order, directing Plaintiff to show cause for his failure. (ECF No. 17). The deadline for Plaintiff to submit his Response was November 4, 2025. (Id.). Both Orders informed Plaintiff that his case would be dismissed if he failed to obey the Orders. Neither Order was returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has failed to response to either Order, and he has not otherwise communicated with the Court. II. LEGAL STANDARD 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). The local rules state 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 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 case. 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. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation. The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. DATED this 19th day of November 2025. /s/ HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE