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

JOHNSE DESMON GILL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:22-cv-06013

DR. GUY HENRY, Medical Provider at the Ouachita River Correctional Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction; JUDGE SUSAN O. HICKEY; MAGISTRATE JUDGE BARRY BRYANT; VICKEY RAWLINGS; and C. GARDNER DEFENDANTS

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

. Plaintiff, Johnse Desmon Gill, proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1, 2, 3). Pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1) and (3) (2011), the Honorable Robert T. Dawson, Senior United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on January 21, 2022. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint filed was incomplete, consisting of only three of eleven pages of the standard form, and containing no factual allegations, claims, statement of relief sought, or signature. On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed two supplements. The first supplement (ECF No. 6) contained pages four through eight of the standard form complaint. The second supplement (ECF No. 7) contained one page relating to ADC Grievance # OR-21-00680, and pages nine through eleven of the standard complaint form. Because Plaintiff failed to indicate the date he signed his Complaint, and he submitted his Complaint piecemeal in three separate parts, the Court entered on Order on January 25, 2022, directing the Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint within 21 days. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due by February 15, 2022. The Order further states: “This case shall be subject to dismissal if Plaintiff fails to return the Amended Complaint to the Court by the deadline.”

Plaintiff filed another supplement to his Complaint on February 15, 2022, consisting of only pages ten and eleven of the standard complaint form and two pages relating to ADC Grievance

# OR-22-00002. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff did not file a complete Amended Complaint as ordered. In an Order dated February 16, 2022, Plaintiff was given until March 9, 2022, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey an order of the Court. (ECF No. 11). The Show Cause Order further noted: “If Plaintiff fails to respond by the deadline, this case shall be subject to dismissal.”

Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause 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). Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states 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.,

, 630–31 (1962) (stating 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,

, 803–04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has failed to obey an Order of the Court and has failed to prosecute this matter. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The parties have fourteen (14) 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. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of March 2022. /s/ HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE