Opinion
Case No. 6:10-cv-304-Orl-19KRS.
February 23, 2011
ORDER
This case comes before the Court upon periodic review. On February 24, 2010, Plaintiff Maritza De Jesus filed a Complaint against Suntrust Bank, N.A. and Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"). (Doc. No. 1.) However, Plaintiff failed to either effect proper service on the Defendants within the 120 days allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) or petition the Court for an extension of time to comply with Rule 4(m). As a result, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause on January 26, 2011 directing the Plaintiff to show cause why the Complaint against the Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). (Doc. No. 7 at 1.) The Order to Show Cause warned that failure to respond within fifteen days "may result in dismissal of this case as to said Defendants without further notice from the Court." Id.
A plaintiff has a duty to prosecute his or her case, and a plaintiff's failure to prosecute, to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or to comply with a court order may result in dismissal of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (internal citation omitted) (finding that a federal court may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute). Here, the Order to Show Cause directed the Plaintiff to comply with Rule 4(m) and warned that failure to do so within fifteen days could result in dismissal without further notice. (Doc. No. 7 at 1.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to the Order to Show Cause or otherwise comply with Rule 4(m). Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure of Plaintiff to prosecute.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 23, 2011.