Jackson v. Kroger Company et al
Filing
28
ORDER & OPINION Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 6/2/2011. The Court Adopt's Magistrate Judge Cudmore's Report and Recommendation 27 and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 26 . Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. CASE TERMINATED. (cc:pla) (RP, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 02 June, 2011 10:40:05 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
ARLEATHA B. JACKSON, )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
KROGER CO.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No. 10-cv-1246
ORDER & OPINION
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for
lack of prosecution (Doc. 26). Magistrate Judge Cudmore has entered a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 27), recommending that Defendant’s Motion be granted, and
that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute.
On August 11, 2010, pro se Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant
Kroger Co. (her former employer) and Don Emmons (her former manager), alleging
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5 (Doc. 1). On November 1, 2010, the Court granted Emmons’
Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Emmons from the case because Title VII does not
provide a remedy against supervisors in their individual capacity. (Doc. 17 at 3).
On January 4, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, and gave her
leave to amend her Complaint within 21 days in order to re-establish a claim
against Emmons pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (Doc. 24). To this date, Plaintiff has
not filed an Amended Complaint.
On March 29, 2011, Defendant Kroger filed a Motion to Compel Discovery
(Doc. 25), complaining that Plaintiff had not responded to any interrogatories or
document requests which it had served upon her.
Although Magistrate Judge
Cudmore directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Compel by April 15,
2011 (Text Order of 3/31/2011), Plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, Magistrate
Judge Cudmore granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel and ordered Plaintiff to
comply with Defendant’s outstanding discovery requests by May 5, 2011, or risk the
dismissal of her case for want of prosecution. (Text Order of 4/18/2011). Plaintiff
again failed to comply with Magistrate Judge Cudmore’s Order and, according to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, has not yet responded to any discovery requests.
Likewise, Plaintiff has failed to respond to either Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or
Magistrate
Judge
Cudmore’s
Report
and
Recommendation
recommending
dismissal, objections to which were due by May 31, 2011.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff fails to
prosecute her case or comply with a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss
the action against it, and that such dismissal will operate as an adjudication on the
merits. Here, Plaintiff has chosen not to file an Amended Complaint after the Court
gave her leave to do so, has failed to abide by discovery requests, has failed to
comply with Magistrate Judge Cudmore’s Orders, and has failed to respond to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss her Complaint and Magistrate Judge Cudmore’s
Report and Recommendation that such Motion be granted. Such conduct evidences
2
a clear indication to the Court that Plaintiff is no longer seeking to prosecute her
case.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Cudmore’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 27) and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED.
CASE TERMINATED.
Entered this 2nd day of June, 2011.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
3
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?