Jackson v. Pridgeon et al

Filing 29

ORDER. On June 8, 2017, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing as to why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution for failure to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond to the sh ow cause order by July 6, 2017, would result in dismissal of this lawsuit on the understanding that plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue his claims. To date, plaintiff has neither responded to the show cause order nor otherwise communicated with the Court. Therefore, this case is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Fed. Election Comm'n v. Al Salvi for Senate Comm., 205 F.3d 1015, 1018 (7th Cir. 2000) (the court has authority both inherently and under Rule 41(b) to dismiss case as sanction for failure to prosecute and noncompliance with court orders); see also Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 2012) ("District courts have considerable discretion to manage their dockets and to require compliance with deadlines."). This case is terminated. All pending motions are denied as moot. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 7/14/2017Notice mailed by judge's staff (ntf, )

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
COREY N. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOAN M. PRIDGEON (FORBES), et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 10432
Judge Jorge L. Alonso

ORDER
On June 8, 2017, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing as to why this case
should not be dismissed for want of prosecution for failure to respond to the pending motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond to the show cause order by July 6, 2017,
would result in dismissal of this lawsuit on the understanding that plaintiff no longer wishes to
pursue his claims. To date, plaintiff has neither responded to the show cause order nor otherwise
communicated with the Court. Therefore, this case is dismissed for want of prosecution. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Fed. Election Comm’n v. Al Salvi for Senate Comm., 205 F.3d 1015, 1018
(7th Cir. 2000) (the court has authority both inherently and under Rule 41(b) to dismiss case as
sanction for failure to prosecute and noncompliance with court orders); see also Keeton v.
Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 2012) (“District courts have considerable
discretion to manage their dockets and to require compliance with deadlines.”). This case is
terminated. All pending motions are denied as moot.
SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: July 14, 2017

_________________________
JORGE L. ALONSO
United States District Judge