From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Trans Union LLC

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 21, 2007
06 Civ. 4003 (PAC) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2007)

Summary

dismissing pro se litigant's complaint for failure to attend two pre-trial conferences

Summary of this case from Neal v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Opinion

06 Civ. 4003 (PAC) (KNF).

August 21, 2007


ORDER


Pro se Plaintiff Parrish Lee ("Lee") brings this action against Defendant Trans Union LLC ("Trans Union"), alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The action was removed to federal court on May 25, 2006. On April 9, 2007, Magistrate Judge Fox granted Trans Union's motion for sanctions against Lee for his failure to comply with two of the court's orders requiring him to participate in court conferences. Despite the sanctions, Lee has not communicated with the court in any way, nor did he attend the scheduled conference on May 16, 2007. Consequently, Magistrate Fox issued a Report and Recommendation on May 18, 2007 recommending the dismissal of the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. No objections were received. Finding no clear error, see Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. The case is dismissed with prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to close out this case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lee v. Trans Union LLC

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 21, 2007
06 Civ. 4003 (PAC) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2007)

dismissing pro se litigant's complaint for failure to attend two pre-trial conferences

Summary of this case from Neal v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

dismissing an action pursuant to Rule 41(b) because, "[a]s a consequence of the plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with court orders, the litigation has been unable to move forward. In addition, as a result of the plaintiff's misconduct, the defendant has been forced to expend resources to protect its interests in an action that the plaintiff initiated but seems uninterested in prosecuting"

Summary of this case from New Phone Co. v. New York City Dept. of Inf. Technol
Case details for

Lee v. Trans Union LLC

Case Details

Full title:PARRISH LEE, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION LLC, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Aug 21, 2007

Citations

06 Civ. 4003 (PAC) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2007)

Citing Cases

New Phone Co. v. New York City Dept. of Inf. Technol

Consequently, "[t]here is absolutely no reason to believe that" if the court does not dismiss the action with…

Neal v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

e ECF No. 27. Delay of this magnitude warrants dismissal. See Jeremy R.S. v. Comm'r of Social Security, No.…