Opinion
Civil Action 1:20-cv-03560-DDD-SKC
08-15-2022
JAWAD AMIR MUSA, Plaintiff, v. DR. RESTO, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION
S. KATO CREWS MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case was filed on December 2, 2020. [Dkt. 1.] On February 26, 2021, and on March 3, 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court that his address had changed, and on April 12, 2021, he requested additional time to file an amended pleading. [Dkts. 14, 16, 18.] Despite being given additional time to do so, Plaintiff never filed his amended complaint. On October 19, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, but Plaintiff failed to respond. To be sure, Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since filing his extension request in April 2021. None of the Court's recent orders have been returned as undeliverable and Plaintiff has not filed any further change of address notice with the Court as required by D.C.Colo.LCivR 5.1(c). On July 14, 2022, the undersigned judicial officer issued an Order to Show Cause, returnable on August 4, 2022, why he should not recommend this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [Dkt. 38.] Plaintiff has again filed nothing.
DISCUSSION
Although Plaintiff is proceeding without an attorney, he nonetheless bears the responsibility of prosecuting his case with diligence and complying with the Local Rules of Practice. While a Court must liberally construe pro se filings, a litigant's pro se status does not relieve him of his obligation to comply with the rules of civil procedure. Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give the district court ample tools to deal with a recalcitrant litigant. See Jones v. Thompson, 996 F.2d 261, 264 (10th Cir. 1993). Rule 41(b) allows a defendant to move for dismissal of an action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See id.; see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007). Although the language of Rule 41(b) contemplates a defendant filing a motion to dismiss, this Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with procedural rules or court orders. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-33 (1962).
Plaintiff has not contacted the Court formally or informally since April 12, 2021. The Motion to Dismiss is over nine months old and Plaintiff has taken no action regarding this motion or the Order to Show Cause despite several extensions of time and a warning from the Court regarding his failure to participate. Consequently, it appears Plaintiff has abandoned his case.
For the foregoing reasons, and based on the entire record herein, and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), the Court RECOMMENDS this case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. The Court further recommends finding as MOOT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. 33.]
Be advised the parties have 14 days after service of this recommendation to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).