Givhan v. Reg'l Med. Ctr.

Full title: ROSIE GIVHAN, Plaintiff, v. REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Mar 3, 2014

Case No. 2:13-cv-02224-JTF-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 3, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 2:13-cv-02224-JTF-cgc

03-03-2014

ROSIE GIVHAN, Plaintiff, v. REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.

JOHN T. FOWLKES

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On April 12, 2013, this case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for determination and or for report and recommendation, pursuant to the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§631-39, in order to secure its just, speedy, and inexpensive determination pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.1. (DE #3). On November 22, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. (DE #11).

On January 7, 2014, the Magistrate entered an Order to Show Cause why Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should not be granted or good cause why a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss had not been filed within twenty-eight (28) days as required by L.R. 12.1. (DE #11). The Show Cause Order directed Plaintiff to respond within fourteen (14) days of entry of the order or by January 21, 2014. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to either the Order to Show Cause or to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as directed. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge entered her Report and Recommendation on February 6, 2014, recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (DE #16). No objections have been filed.

After reviewing the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and the entire record, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge properly weighed all four factors that guide the Court's determination of whether a complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41 as provided in Knoll v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999). Further, the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that Plaintiff has failed to participate in this case since April of 2013 and disregarded orders entered by the Court.

Therefore, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation should be ADOPTED, the case DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

__________

JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.

United States District Judge