Opinion
C/A No.: 8:14-cv-04208-TMC-JDA
05-29-2015
Brandon Lee Bailey Plaintiff, v. Municipality of Greenville County, John Vandermosen, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. On April 2, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 35.] By Order of this Court on the same day, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. [Doc. 36.] Despite this explanation, Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion.
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court filed an Order on May 8, 2015, giving Plaintiff through May 18, 2015, to respond to the motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 40.] Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [Id.] However, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion.
Based on the foregoing, it appears Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action. "The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize that courts must have the authority to control litigation before them, and this authority includes the power to order dismissal of an action for failure to comply with court orders." Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). "Federal courts possess an inherent authority to dismiss cases with prejudice sua sponte." Gantt v. Md. Div. of Corr., 894 F. Supp. 226, 229 (D. Md. 1995) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); White v. Raymark Indust., Inc., 783 F.2d 1175 (4th Cir. 1986); Zaczek v. Fauquier Cnty., Va., 764 F. Supp. 1071, 1074 (E.D. Va.1991)).
The Fourth Circuit, in Davis v. Williams, recognizing that dismissal with prejudice is a harsh sanction that should not be invoked lightly, set forth four factors for determining whether Rule 41(b) dismissal is appropriate:
(1) the degree of personal responsibility on the part of the plaintiff;588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978) (citing McCargo v. Hedrick, 545 F.2d 393, 396 (4th Cir. 1976)). Subsequently, however, the Fourth Circuit noted that "the four factors . . . are not a rigid four-pronged test," and whether to dismiss depends on the particular circumstances of the case. Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95. For example, in Ballard, the court reasoned that "the Magistrate's explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from failure to obey his order is a critical fact that distinguishes this case from those cited by appellant. . . . In view of the warning, the district court had little alternative to dismissal. Any other course would have placed the credibility of the court in doubt and invited abuse." Id. at 95-96.
(2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay;
(3) the presence or absence of a drawn out history of deliberately proceeding in a dilatory fashion; and
(4) the effectiveness of sanctions less drastic than dismissal.
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is personally responsible for his failure to file a response. Plaintiff has had over a month an a half to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's initial response was due by May 7, 2015 and, despite being advised of the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond, Plaintiff elected not to respond. The Court filed a second Order, reminding Plaintiff a response was due and giving him additional time—until May 18, 2015—to respond. The Court has warned Plaintiff the case would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) if Plaintiff failed to file a response. Despite this explanation, Plaintiff has elected not to respond. Because Plaintiff has already ignored Court Orders and deadlines, sanctions less drastic than dismissal would not be effective.
The Court is aware that the Order was returned as undeliverable [Doc. 42]; however, the Court has no way to ensure its delivery without an updated address. Plaintiff updated his address on February 20, 2015. [Doc. 20.] However, the Court is aware that Plaintiff has not received any mail form this Court since at least January 21, 2015 [Doc. 32 (noting that Doc. 21 was returned as undeliverable)], including the Roseboro Order directing him to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. 39 (noting that Doc. 36 was returned as undeliverable]. Plaintiff was informed he was required to notify the Court of any changes of address and has not done so. Accordingly, the Court recommends the Complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends the case be DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States Magistrate Judge
May 29, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina