Hopkins v. SN Servicing Corporation et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 7/17/2015. (PSM)

FILED
2015 Jul-17 PM 01:52
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
RUSSELL HOPKINS,
Plaintiff;
vs.
SN SERVICING
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

7:15-cv-00295-LSC

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
(Doc. 26.) For the reasons stated below, this motion is due to be GRANTED.
I.

Background
Russell Hopkins (“Hopkins”), acting pro se, filed his complaint against the

Defendants, along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, on February
18, 2015. The case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge T. Michael Putnam,
who granted the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 16, 2015. On
March 23, 2015, Hopkins filed his notification of addresses for service. (Doc. 7.) This
was the last action taken by Hopkins to prosecute his case.
On April 27, 2015, this case was reassigned to this Court due to lack of
Page 1 of 4

unanimous consent to jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge. On June 19, 2015, the Court
set a Scheduling Conference for July 6, 2015, in a text Order stating that “one attorney
or pro se litigant for each party must attend the conference in person.” Notice of the
conference was mailed to Hopkins. However, Hopkins failed to appear at the July 6
scheduling conference, and has not provided any explanation for this failure.
On June 17, 2015, Defendant Rachel R. Friedman filed a motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 21) and motion for sanctions against Hopkins. (Doc.22.) On June 23,
2015, the Court entered an order directing Hopkins to file a response to the motion for
sanctions within twenty days, and directing Hopkins attention to the rules on
responding to summary judgment contained in the Court’s Uniform Initial Order.
(Doc. 24.) Hopkins has failed to file any response to either of these motions.
Hopkins had previously filed another lawsuit asserting similar claims against
Defendant CitiFinancial, which was removed to Federal court on July 25, 2014. See
Hopkins v. Bayview Loans Servicing, et al., No. 7:14-cv-01435-RDP-TMP (Doc. 1-1).
CitiFinancial was ultimately terminated from that case, as Hopkins filed an amended
complaint which did not name them as a defendant. Hopkins, No. 7:14-cv-01435-RDPTMP (Doc. 27). That case was ultimately dismissed on June 10, 2015 for lack of
prosecution. Hopkins, No. 7:14-cv-01435-RDP-TMP (Doc. 37).
On July 7, 2015, the Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss for lack of
Page 2 of 4

prosecution.
II.

Analysis
Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the plaintiff

fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move
to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “The power to
invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of
pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Court.” Equity
Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Durham v. Fla. East Coast Ry. Co., 385 F.2d 366, 367 (5th Cir.
1967)).
Hopkins has failed to make any appearance in this case since filing a notification
of addresses for service on March 16, 2015, and has failed to follow the Court’s orders
directing him to appear at a scheduling conference and respond to Defendant’s
motions. Accordingly, this action is due to be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. 26) is due to be

GRANTED, and this case is due to be DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate
order will be entered.

Page 3 of 4

Done this 17th day of July 2015.

L. SCOTT COOGLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
177825

Page 4 of 4