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

JOSEPH SWIK PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 3:22-cv-03068-TLB-MEF

SEARCY COUNTY JAIL DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff, Joseph Swik (“Swik”), pursuant to

. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L. Brook, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. The case is before the Court on Swik’s failure to obey the Orders of the Court. I. DISCUSSION

Swik filed a Complaint (ECF No. 2) and IFP application (ECF No. 1) in the Eastern District of Arkansas on November 22, 2022. That same day, an Order (ECF No. 3) was entered directing the case to be transferred to this district. On November 28, 2022, the case was opened in this district. (ECF No. 4). On November 29, 2022, Swik was informed his IFP application was deficient because it did not contain a certificate of account. (ECF No. 6). Swik was given until December 20, 2022, to file a complete IFP application or pay the $402 filing fee.

Swik was advised that failure to comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of the case. An Order (ECF No. 7) was 1 also entered advising Swik his Complaint was deficient and giving him explicit instructions on what his amended complaint should contain.

The amended complaint was due by December 20, 2022.

Swik was informed that failure to comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of the case.

On December 28, 2022, a Show Cause Order (ECF No. 8) was entered directing to Swik to show cause for his failure to comply with the Court’s Orders (ECF Nos. 6 & 7). Swik’s response to the Show Cause Order was due January 18, 2023. (ECF No. 8). Swik was again advised that failure to comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of his case. To date, Swik has not filed his complete IFP application, his Amended Complaint, or a response to the Show Cause Order. He has not requested an extension of time to file his responses. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. Swik has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders (ECF Nos. 6-8). 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.,

(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). 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.

2 II. CONCLUSION For these reasons, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Swik’s failure to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the orders of the Court, and his failure to comply with

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). 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. DATED this 30th day of January 2023.

/s/ HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3