Lee v. Limited Brands Store Operations Inc et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting deft's 37 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution; pltf's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 3/2/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ANGELA M. LEE,
LIMITED BRANDS STORE OPERATIONS, *
INC. and VICTORIA’S SECRET STORES
No. 4:11CV00236 SWW
Memorandum and Order
Before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and failure to
comply with the order of this Court. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the motion.1
By previous Order the Court informed the plaintiff of her responsibility to be familiar and
comply with all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules of this Court.
The Court told her that failure to comply with the rules could result in dismissal of her claim.2
On January 12, 2102, the Court directed plaintiff to immediately respond to defendant’s
discovery requests and provide defendant with dates for a deposition. The Court again warned
her that failure to abide by the Court’s Order could result in dismissal of her case. According to
defendant, plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s discovery order, and the record reflects
plaintiff did not file a response to any of the defendants’ previous motions or participate in the
Local Rule 7.2(b) requires that within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of copies of a
motion and supporting papers, a party opposing the motion must file a response to the motion.
See docket entry 5.
Rule 26(f) conference.
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) provides that a party appearing pro se has the duty to prosecute her
action diligently. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff fails to
prosecute or comply court orders, the defendant may move for dismissal. Under Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(b)(2)(v), one of the available sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with a discovery order
is dismissal of the action. Because the plaintiff has failed to prosecute her case and failed to
comply with the Court’s January 2012 Order, the Court finds that her complaint should be
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss [docket entry 37] is
granted. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Judgment will be entered
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2012.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?