IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION

TERRANCE DALE WORTH PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 1:20-cv-1061

CAPTAIN RICHARD MITCHAM, Jail Administrator; NURSE SHERI RICE; and DOCTOR HOPKINS DEFENDANTS

ORDER This is a civil rights action filed pro se pursuant to

. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order and to prosecute this action. On March 15, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to respond by April 5, 2021, to Separate Defendant Dr. Deanna Hopson’s 1 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Consolidate. (ECF Nos. 17. 21). Plaintiff was advised “that failure to timely and properly comply with this Order shall result in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).” (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff did not respond to Separate Defendant’s motion. On April 20, 2021, an Order was entered giving Plaintiff until May 11, 2021, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey an order of the Court. (ECF No. 22). The Order stated, “[f]ailure to respond to this Order shall result in the dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order. 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:

1 Plaintiff incorrectly identifies Dr. Hopson as “Doctor Hopkins” in his amended complaint. ECF No. 11. 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).

Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of May, 2021. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

2