Opinion
Nos. 01-1283-SAC., 01-1287-SAC.
March 14, 2002.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The case comes before the court on the plaintiff's failure to respond to a Notice and Order to Show Cause issued January 28, 2002. (Dk. 31). The magistrate judge recounts the plaintiff's conduct leading to this latest show cause order. The plaintiff failed to appear at a scheduling conference in November 15, 2001, and was warned in a show cause order of November 16, 2001, that the court could impose sanctions as a result of this conduct, including dismissal if she did not respond to the show cause order. The plaintiff responded with an explanation and provided a change of address and new telephone number. The magistrate judge took the sanctions issue under advisement and reset the scheduling conference for January 25, 2002. Using the telephone number most recently provided, the magistrate judge attempted to contact the plaintiff on January 25th. The telephone operator placing the conference call informed the magistrate judge that he had been advised the plaintiff no longer resided at the location given this telephone number.
Not hearing from the plaintiff and unable to reach her, the magistrate judge issued a show cause order with the following language:
Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause to the United States District Court Sam A. Crow, in writing, on or before February 15, 2002, why the court should not impose the sanction of dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(C), due to the plaintiff's failure to appear at the November 15, 2001 and January 25, 2002 scheduling conferences.
In the event that plaintiff fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause as required, the court may dismiss these cases with prejudice, which Order would result in a final adjudication of the plaintiff's claims in favor of defendant.
(Dk. 31, pp. 2-3). This order was delivered by certified mail to the address last provided by the plaintiff and was returned as unclaimed after two attempts to deliver.
Despite being warned by the court, the plaintiff has repeatedly failed to appear at scheduling conferences and to keep the court informed of her current residence and telephone numbers. Under these circumstances, the court concludes it is appropriate to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiff's claims in these two cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.