Leato et al v. Horizon Bank et al, No. 5:2019cv05140 - Document 7 (W.D. Ark. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the order of the Court. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on September 10, 2019. (tg) Modified on 9/10/2019 to edit text(tg).

Download PDF
Leato et al v. Horizon Bank et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION JOHN LEATO; and LAURINA T. LEATO v. PLAINTIFFS Civil No. 5:19-cv-05140 HORIZON BANK; and DOES 1-10, inclusive DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, John and Laurina Leato, filed this action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiffs proceed pro se and in forma pauperis. By Order (ECF No. 6) entered on August 6, 2019, Plaintiffs were directed to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint was to be filed by August 27, 2019. Plaintiffs were advised that failure to comply with the Order “shall result” in the dismissal of the case. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint. Plaintiffs have not sought an extension of time to comply with the Order. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with an order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Line 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). Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas requires parties appearing pro se to monitor the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. Dockets.Justia.com Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(b), this Complaint should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this case, their failure to obey the order of the Court, and their failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of September 2019. /s/P.K. Holmes,III P. K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.