Opinion
21-CV-6122 (ALC) (RWL)
10-24-2022
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, United States Magistrate Judge.
Whereas Plaintiff commenced this action in the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York on October 23, 2019; and
After Plaintiff's considerable failure to advance his case, Defendants removed the action to this Court on July 16, 2021 (Dkt. 1); and
Plaintiff repeatedly failed to respond to the Court's orders to show cause in regard to serving certain Defendants (see Dkt. 18-19); and
This Court issued an order on April 4, 2022 scheduling the initial pretrial conference for May 4, 2022 (Dkt. 24); and
Plaintiff failed to appear for the initial pretrial conference held on May 4, 2022 (Dkt. 29); and
Defendant moved by letter motion dated May 17, 2022 to dismiss the case for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. 31); and
On May 23, 2022, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute (Dkt. 32), in response to which Plaintiff filed a letter on June 14, 2022 asserting continued interest in prosecuting the action and desire to attend the initial pretrial conference but stating that he had been otherwise occupied by “lifestyle changes” and increased work demands (Dkt. 34); and
Whereas on September 13, 2022, the Court issued an order scheduling (again) the initial pretrial conference for October 4, 2022 (Dkt. 37); and
Plaintiff failed to appear for the re-scheduled initial pretrial conference held on October 4, 2022, filed no request for adjournment, and still did nothing to advance his case; and
Whereas on October 6, 2022, the Court issued another order for Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute at an in-person hearing at 2:30 p.m. on October 20, 2022 (Dkt. 40); and
Plaintiff failed to appear for the show cause hearing held on October 20, 2022, filed no request for adjournment, still did nothing to advance his case, and did not otherwise communicate with the Court in any way; and
Dismissal for failure to prosecute is “committed to the discretion of the district court,” Romandette v. Weetabix Co., Inc., 807 F.2d 309, 312 (2d Cir. 1986), and is “vital to the efficient administration of judicial affairs,” Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 42 (2d Cir. 1982);
The Court recommends that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Mai v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., 20-CV-11129, 2021 WL 5086301 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2021) (dismissing for failure to prosecute where pro se plaintiff was inactive for over four months despite receiving two separate warnings that the case could be dismissed); Nava v. Opai Thai Inc., 20-CV-03848, 2021 WL 1873153 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2021) (dismissing for failure to prosecute where pro se plaintiff “repeatedly...failed to appear, comply with Court Orders, or take any other action to prosecute the case”); McLean v. City of New York, 4-CV-8353, 2007 WL 415138, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2007) (noting that the “court should not have to beg the parties before itto litigate the cases they initiate”).
Objections And Right To Appeal
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a), and 6(d) of the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days to file written objections to this Report And Recommendation. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with extra copies delivered to the Chambers of the Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr., United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007, and to the Chambers of the undersigned, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. Failure to file timely objections will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review.
SO ORDERED.