IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION

JONHA DON BELL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:23-CV-02121-TLB-MEF

JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JACOB SHOOK, Johnson County Detention Center, and PAROLE OFFICER BEN HOLLAND DEFENDANTS

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

. Pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order and failure to prosecute this case. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 13, 2023. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status that same day. (ECF No. 3). The Order granting IFP status advised him that he must keep the Court apprised of his mailing address or his case would be dismissed. (Id.). On October 16, 2023, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to correct deficiencies in his initial Complaint. (ECF No. 6). On November 3, 2023, mail sent to Plaintiff in the Johnson County Detention Center was returned as undeliverable indicating Plaintiff was no longer in the facility. (ECF No. 7). The deadline for Plaintiff to submit his new address was set for December 4, 2023. (Id.). On November 13, 2023, the Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint was also returned as undeliverable, indicating the mail had been refused. (ECF No. 8). To date, Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since filing his Complaint. 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 keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order. 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, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WIHTOUT 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. DATED this 19th day of December 2023. /s/ HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE