United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
JAMES TERRY COOK, JR. (ADC#651371), Plaintiff,
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR PETE PETERSON, et. al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff James Terry Cook filed this case pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 14, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) Now before the Court is Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order and to prosecute this matter.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable P. K. Holmes III, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. After careful consideration, the undersigned makes the following Report and Recommendation.
At the time Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he was incarcerated in the Johnson County Detention Center. (ECF. No. 1.)
In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims Defendant violated his constitutional rights by denying him medical care. (ECF No. 1.)
On July 14, 2014, Plaintiff's Complaint was provisionally filed, and Plaintiff was ordered to file the funds affidavit required to complete the IFP application by July 30, 2014. (ECF No. 3.) On July 21, 2014 that Order was returned as undeliverable from the Johnson County Detention Center.
On August 6, 2014, the completed funds affidavit was filed. (ECF No. 5.)
On August 7, 2014, the Court determined through research that Plaintiff had been released from the Johnson County Detention Center. The Court filed a Change Address Order using the home address provided provided to the detention center when he was booked. (ECF No. 6.) Mail sent to this address was not returned as undeliverable.
On January 15, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's IFP application and directed service on Defendants. (ECF No. 7.)
On April 29, 2015, the Court filed an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to respond by May 20, 2015 or face case dismissal. (ECF No. 13.) This Order was not returned as undeliverable.
2. APPLICABLE LAW
While 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, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (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 ...