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

DAVID CLARKSON CADWALLADER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:24-cv-05107-TLB-MEF

NURSE KELLIE HINELY, Karas Correctional Health (KCH); JORDAN PRAVENAS, KCH Paramedic; and JAKE SMOTHERS, KCH Paramedic DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to

. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 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 Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s Orders and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 42-43). I. DISCUSSION Plaintiff filed his Complaint to initiate this action on May 16, 2024. (ECF No. 1). When he filed the Complaint, Plaintiff was advised of his obligation to immediately inform the Court of any changes in his address. (ECF No. 3). He was informed that if he failed to keep the Court informed of his address his case would be subject to dismissal.

Additionally, Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas requires pro se parties to “promptly notify the Clerk and 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.” 1 After Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, service was directed on the Defendants. (ECF No. 9). A Bench Order was issued after all parties had answered. (ECF No. 15). Two of the former Defendants, Jay Cantrell and Tom Mulvaney, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment

on the issue of exhaustion. (ECF No. 22-24). When Plaintiff failed to respond despite several warnings, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Cantrell and Mulvaney were dismissed. (ECF Nos. 32 & 33). An Initial Scheduling Order was issued on January 27, 2025. (ECF No. 37). On June 9, 2025, mail was returned as undeliverable marked “paroled.” (ECF No. 41). Defendants have now filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his address. (ECF Nos. 42-43). 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,

, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). 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 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). II. CONCLUSION For these reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 42) be GRANTED, and pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the case

2 be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this his claims; his failure to obey the orders of the Court; and his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Status of Referral: The referral terminates upon the filing of this Report and

Recommendation. 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 25th day of August 2025.

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

3