Freeman v. Berryhill

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Beth Labson Freeman on 8/9/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

MATTHEW RAY FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-02279-BLF
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WESTMORE
TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
[Re: ECF 19]

12
13

On July 19, 2018, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore in her Report and

14

Recommendation (“R&R”) determined that the case should be dismissed without prejudice for

15

Plaintiff Matthew Ray Freeman’s (“Plaintiff”) failure to prosecute. See ECF 19. Plaintiff did not

16

file any objections.

17

When a party does not object to an R&R, the Court reviews it for clear error or manifest

18

injustice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983). After

19

conducting an appropriate review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,

20

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The

21

Court has reviewed and thoroughly considered Magistrate Judge Westmore’s R&R.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Federal courts have the “inherent power” to dismiss cases sua sponte for lack of
prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). When considering whether to
dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, the court must weigh five factors: (1) “the court’s need to
manage its docket,” (2) “the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” (3) “the risk of
prejudice to the defendants,” (4) “the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits,” and (5)
“the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). In
Ash, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice for failure to

1
prosecute where the plaintiff had failed to act for a mere six weeks. Id. at 496. The Ninth Circuit
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

emphasized both that dismissal without prejudice would give “the plaintiff the opportunity to
return and prosecute his claims another day” and that the district court had “notified [the plaintiff]
of the impending dismissal and given an opportunity” to explain the delay, to which plaintiff had
failed to respond. Id. at 496–97. Accord Rochester v. Rowe, 471 F. Appx. 642 (9th Cir. 2012).
Here, as in Ash, the five factors weigh in favor of dismissing this case without prejudice
for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has yet to file a motion for summary judgment or
motion to remand, though his original deadline to do so was January 11, 2018—almost seven
months ago. See ECF 19. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Westmore provided Plaintiff sufficient
notice of the possibility of dismissal, mentioning this potential outcome in both of her subsequent

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

orders to show cause. See ECF 17; ECF 18. To date, Plaintiff has provided no justification for

12

these delays. Finally, this dismissal is without prejudice, thus minimizing the chance that Plaintiff

13

will be unable to prosecute his claims.

14

Finding the R&R correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, the Court adopts it in every

15

respect. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice for

16

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

Dated: August 9, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2