Roach v. AKAL Security, Inc.(CONSENT)

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that this case be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for the plaintiff's abandonment of his claims, his failure to prosecute this action and failure to comply with the orders of the court. It is further ORDERED that costs be and are hereby TAXED against the plaintiff. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/3/2009. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O RT H E R N DIVISION B R E T T L. ROACH, P l a in tiff , v. A K A L SECURITY, INC., D e f e n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C I V IL ACT. NO. 2:08cv672-CSC

M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER In this action, the plaintiff, Brett L. Roach ("Roach"), alleges that he was wrongfully te rm in a te d from his employment and retaliated against because of his race, Native American. H e brings his claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U .S .C . § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court has jurisdiction of the p la in t i ff 's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the jurisdictional grant in 42 U.S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e -5 . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and M.D. Ala. LR 73.1, the parties have c o n se n te d to the United States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in this case and o rd e rin g the entry of final judgment. The scheduling order in this case set a June 2, 2009 dispositive motion deadline. D u r i n g the plaintiff's deposition on May 12, 2009, the plaintiff abruptly stopped his d e p o sitio n and refused to continue. The court held a status conference with counsel on May 1 2 , 2009. According to plaintiff's counsel, the plaintiff left his deposition saying that he was " th ro u g h ." As a result of that conference, the court directed the plaintiff to show cause on

o r before May 27, 2009, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to complete his d e p o sitio n . To date, the plaintiff has filed nothing in response to the court's May 13, 2009 o rd e r. Given the plaintiff's actions at the deposition and his failure to respond to the order o f the court, the court concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. A c c o r d in g ly, it is ORDERED that this case be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for the p lain tiff 's abandonment of his claims, his failure to prosecute this action and failure to c o m p ly with the orders of the court. It is further O R D E R E D that costs be and are hereby TAXED against the plaintiff. D o n e this 3 r d day of June, 2009.

/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2