McGill v. The Home Depot, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 4/20/16. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOSEPH G. MCGILL,

Case No. 15-cv-03029-KAW

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.
9
10

THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On January 22, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff Joseph G. McGill’s counsel’s motion to

14

withdraw on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to communicate despite counsel’s efforts to reach

15

him using various forms of communication since April 2015. (Dkt. No. 32.)

16

On March 8, 2016, the Court held a case management conference, at which Plaintiff did

17

not appear. (See Dkt. No. 35.) On March 11, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause to

18

Plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and to explain

19

why he did not attend the March 8, 2016 case management conference. (Dkt. No. 36.) Therein,

20

Court provided Plaintiff with the contact information for the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help

21

Desk, as well as the district court’s manual for pro se litigants, to assist him in representing

22

himself. Id. The response deadline was March 31, 2016. Id. On March 21, 2016, pursuant to Civil

23

Local Rule 11-5(b), the order to show cause was served on Plaintiff via U.S. Mail by his former

24

attorney. (Dkt. No. 37.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC nor has he filed any

25

documents in connection with his case.

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or

27

claim for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31

28

(1962) (“authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been

1

considered an ‘inherent power’”). Unless otherwise stated, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates

2

as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

3

In light of the foregoing, the case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

4

Plaintiff’s former counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff at his last known

5
6
7

address.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2