Summary
This report and recommendation addresses a pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint alleging denial of physical therapy or further medical attention after arm and wrist surgery. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order requiring payment of the filing fee or submission of an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's order requiring payment of the filing fee or submission of an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether a pro se litigant is excused from complying with applicable procedural and substantive rules.
Holdings
- A federal court may dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order; because Reardon ignored the order requiring him to cure the filing deficiency, dismissal without prejudice was recommended.
- A pro se litigant is not exempt from compliance with relevant procedural and substantive law.
Key quotations
“The authority of a federal court to dismiss a plaintiff's action because of failure to prosecute is clear.” (at 2)
Factual background
Reardon alleged that, after surgery on his arm and wrist, he was denied physical therapy or further medical attention by the St. Tammany Parish Jail Medical Department. He sought monetary compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He failed to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis after receiving a deficiency notice and then failed to comply with a subsequent court order requiring him to cure the deficiency.
Procedural history
Reardon filed the complaint in September 2025. The Clerk notified him that the filing was deficient because he had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis and gave him 21 days to cure the deficiency. After he failed to respond, the magistrate judge ordered him on November 25, 2025, to cure the deficiency by December 15, 2025, warning that noncompliance would result in a recommendation of dismissal. Reardon did not comply, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice, subject to a 14-day objection period.