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

MICHAEL EUGENE HALE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:24-cv- 05117-TLB-CDC

KARAS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH DEFENDANTS (KCH); SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL, Washington County, Arkansas; PARAMEDIC DUSTIN SANDERS, KCH; KELLIE HINLEY, Head of Medical, KCH; PARAMEDIC JORDAN PREVANAS, KCH; PARAMEDIC JACK SMOTHERS, KCH; and PARAMEDIC JUSTYN MCENTIRE, KCH

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Michael E. Hale (“Hale”), filed this civil rights action pursuant to

. At the time he filed his Complaint, Hale was incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center. Hale maintains Defendants denied him adequate medical care in violation of his constitutional rights. Hale proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 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. The case is before the Court on Hale’s failure to obey the Orders of the Court and a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) filed by Defendant. I. DISCUSSION On September 23, 2024, Hale by telephone advised the Clerks’ Office that he had been released from custody and provided his new address. In accordance with the Court’s ordinary practice, Hale was directed to re-submit an IFP application reflecting his free world financial status. (ECF No. 30). Hale was directed to return the IFP application or pay the $350 filing fee by November 19, 2024.

When Hale failed to submit an IFP application or pay the filing fee, out of an abundance of caution and to ensure procedural fairness a Show Cause Order was entered. (ECF No. 32).

Hale was given until December 12, 2024, to show cause why he failed to obey the Order of the Court.

Hale was advised that if he failed to respond to the Show Cause Order the case “shall be subject to dismissal.”

On January 15, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Stay the deadlines of the Initial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 34). A stay of the deadlines has been granted. (ECF No. 36). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is based on Hale’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders. 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. II. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, it is recommended that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) be GRANTED and this be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Status of Referral: The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and Recommendation. The parties have fourteen 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. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January 2025.

s/ Christy Comstock CHRISTY COMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE