Bedford v. Arkansas Department of Corrections et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
SERVITOUS BEDFORD 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 6:26-cv-06063
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; SERGEANT SEIGAL;
MAJOR OTTS; and WARDEN WHITE 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Mark
E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 11. Judge
Ford recommended that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice.
After filing an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) with the Court, Plaintiff had neither paid
the filing fee nor applied to proceed in forma pauperis. Judge Ford entered an order (ECF No. 9)
directing him to do one of these things, but Plaintiff never responded. Subsequently, Judge Ford
entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause for his failure to obey the previous order and
warning him that if he missed this deadline then “this case shall be subject to dismissal.”
ECF No. 10. Again, Plaintiff never responded. None of the Court’s orders mailed to Plaintiff have
been returned as undeliverable. Pursuant to Rule 41(b), Judge Ford reasoned that Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute this case, his failure to obey the orders of the Court, and his failure to comply with
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) warrant dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Defendant has not objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Ford’s
Case 6:26-cv-06063-JTS Document 12 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 11) in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of October, 2026.
/s/ John Thomas Shepherd
John Thomas Shepherd
United States District Judge
Case 6:26-cv-06063-JTS Document 12 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>