Opinion
20 C 06186
09-16-2022
STACY PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO and CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS HANLON #3043, PEREZ #16182, and UNKNOWN OFFICERS, Defendants.
ORDER
John J. Tharp, Jr. United States District Judge.
For the reasons set forth in the Statement below, the defendants' motion to dismiss for want of prosecution [43] is granted, and the plaintiff's case is dismissed with prejudice. Judgment will be entered in favor of the defendants. Civil case terminated.
STATEMENT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides in part, “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” The defendants in this case have moved to dismiss because the plaintiff failed to both prosecute and comply with multiple orders requiring her to appear at telephonic hearings. See ECF Nos. 32-35. The Court repeatedly warned that her failure to attend those telephonic hearings could result in the dismissal of her case for want of prosecution. Id. Further, following the withdrawal of her former attorneys of record more than one year ago, the plaintiff has not filed a pro se appearance, made any attempt to communicate with the Court or the parties, nor responded to the defendants' motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. In sum, based on her noncompliance with court orders and inaction for over a year, the Court concludes that the plaintiff has effectively abandoned this case.