Paul Barron, Jr. v. Corporal Teague, et al, No. 5:2019cv05161 - Document 8 (W.D. Ark. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on September 20, 2019. (lgd)

Download PDF
Paul Barron, Jr. v. Corporal Teague, et al Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION PAUL BARRON, JR. v. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 5:19-cv-05161 CORPORAL TEAGUE; NURSE DENISE WILTON; NURSE JON BECKHAM; and CORPORAL MULVANEY DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center. By Order (ECF No. 7) entered on August 22, 2019, Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint was to be filed by September 11, 2019. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Order “shall” result in the dismissal of the case. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff has 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. [1] Dockets.Justia.com Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(b), this Complaint should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the order of the Court, and his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of September 2019. /s/P.K. Holmes,III P. K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE [2]

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.