IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

LONNELL I. FORT PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:21-CV-06127

NANCY COOPER, et. al. DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to

. Pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court Orders and failure to prosecute this case. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on July 27, 2021. (ECF No. 2). On August 6, 2021 (ECF No. 3) and again on September 1, 2021 (ECF No. 8) United States District Judge Jay Moody of the Eastern District of Arkansas, ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a properly certified in forma pauperis application. Plaintiff was warned in each instance that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this Case. Plaintiff never responded to either order. The case was transferred to this District on September 9, 2021. (ECF No. 15). On September 17, 2021, this Court entered Orders directing Plaintiff to submit an in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee, and to submit an Amended Complaint, by October 8, 2021. (ECF Nos. 18, 19). Plaintiff has now been advised four (4) times that his case would be subject to dismissal if he failed to obey the Orders of the Court. Since the entry of these Orders, Plaintiff has failed to communicate with the Clerk or comply with the Court’s Orders either in this District or in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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,

(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.,

(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,

(8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). III. ANALYSIS Plaintiff has failed to comply with Court Orders. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter. 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, I recommend that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to

(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 18th day of October 2021. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE