IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

TIMOTHY WADE JACKSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:21-cv-4033

WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court order and failure to prosecute this case. On November 22, 2021, this Court directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) by December 13, 2021. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff was further 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. 23). Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion. On December 20, 2021, an Order was entered giving Plaintiff until January 10, 2022, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey an order of the Court. (ECF No. 24). The Order further stated: “[f]ailure to respond to this Order shall result in the dismissal of this action.” Id. Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to show cause. In addition, mail addressed to the Plaintiff was returned to the Court on December 21, 2021, and December 29, 2021. (ECF Nos. 25, 26). The mail was returned as undeliverable and was marked as return to sender. Id. The Court has no new address for the Plaintiff. 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).

Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order and has failed to prosecute this action. 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. 7) should be, and hereby is, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of January 2022. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE