Meadows v. Doe

Full title: RODNEY MEADOWS Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, GREYHOUND LINES, INC. Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

Date published: Dec 3, 2021

Civil Action 3:20-cv-743 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 3, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Action 3:20-cv-743

12-03-2021

RODNEY MEADOWS Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, GREYHOUND LINES, INC. Defendants.

JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY, United States Magistrate Judge.

Richardson, Judge.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY, United States Magistrate Judge.

By Order September 17, 2020, (Docket No. 7), the Court referred this action to the undersigned magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Court.

This action was filed on August 31, 2020. Docket No. 1. Summons were issued in the case on September 1, 2020. Docket No. 4. To date, the Plaintiff has not filed proof of service and no appearance has been entered on behalf of the Defendants. The docket for the case indicates that Plaintiff has had no contact with the Court or made any filings since filing the original Complaint in this matter.

Rule 4(m) requires that the defendants be served with process within 90 days of the date this action was filed and provides that, in the absence of a showing of good cause by the plaintiff for why service has not been timely made, the Court "must dismiss" the action without prejudice.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) “confers on district courts the authority to dismiss an action for failure of a Plaintiff to prosecute the claim or comply with the Rules or any order of the Court. Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Department, 529 F.3d 731, 736 (6^th Cir. 2008)(citing Knoll v. AT & T, 176 F.3d 359, 362-3 (6^th Cir. 1999)); Carpenter v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 704 (6^th Cir. 2013)(“It is well settled that a district court has the authority to dismiss sua sponte a lawsuit for failure to prosecute.”). Similarly, this Court's Local Rules provides that “[c]ivil suits that have been pending for an unreasonable period of time without any action having been taken by any party may be summarily dismissed . . . without prejudice to refile or to move the Court to set aside the order of dismissal for just cause.” Local Rule 41.01(a)(dismissal for unreasonable delay. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is a tool for district courts to manage their dockets and avoid unnecessary burdens on opposing parties and the judiciary. See Schafer, 529 F.3d at 736 (quoting Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363).

Plaintiff has failed to take any action to advance this litigation for over a year. Plaintiff has taken no further action with respect to this litigation after the filing of the original complaint.

A “defendant cannot be expected to defend an action, that Plaintiff has apparently abandoned, not to mention the investment of time and resources expending to defend this case.” Miles v. Sheffield, 2009 WL 3497794, at *2 (E. D. Mich. October 28, 2009)(internal quotations marks and citations omitted). All parties have a right to a just and prompt resolution to their cases. The failure to advance litigation, as the Plaintiff has here, prejudices the parties and reflects the type of situation where the Court should intervene.

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court respectfully recommends this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.¹

1 This Report and Recommendation provides notice to Plaintiff of the Court's intention to sua sponte dismiss the action, and the fourteen-day period for filing objections provides him with the opportunity to show good cause why the action should not be dismissed.

Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of any objections filed in this Report in which to file any response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).