Wallace v. Lakin et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion (Doc. 35 ) to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(b) and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/11/2016. (jdh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN LAKIN, et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-00557-JPG-DGW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 35) to Dismiss Pursuant
to Rule 41(b) for want of prosecution and for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order.
The plaintiff has not filed a response.
The Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 18, 2015, alleging various violations of his
constitutional rights in connection with his confinement in the Madison County Jail including
exposure to raw sewage, inadequate nutrition, failure to follow grievance procedures, and
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Plaintiff’s claims with regard to his conditions
of confinement and inadequate nutrition survived threshold review and proceeded against the
defendants. (Doc. 7).
This matter then proceeded to the discovery phase of litigation. On May 24, 2016, the
Court granted the defendants’ motion to compel (Doc. 33) and directed the plaintiff to respond to
the defendants’ written discovery requests. The Court further warned the plaintiff that failure to
provide the responses in accordance with the Court’s order may result in sanctions, including
dismissal of this lawsuit. To date, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the defendants’ discovery
requests as directed.
The Court also notes that the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Defendants’ Motion for
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution. The last contact the plaintiff had with the Court was on
October 30, 2015, when he filed his response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
As such, there has been no activity by the plaintiff in this matter in almost a year.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41((b) provides for involuntary dismissal, "If the plaintiff
fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order." Further, The Court has inherent
authority to manage its docket. See In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 1995).
Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 35) to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 41(b)and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
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?