Reynolds v. Bank of America, N.A.

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 1/28/2016. (ceg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ATRELLA R. REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-CV-1001-NJR-PMF

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff, Atrella R. Reynolds, filed this action and a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on September 11, 2015 (Docs. 1, 2). Plaintiff then filed a motion for leave to
amend her complaint on September 28, 2015 (Doc. 6). The Court granted Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to amend her complaint, withheld ruling on the motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis until Plaintiff filed the amended complaint, and found moot
Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file an answer (Doc. 9). Plaintiff’s
amended complaint was due on or before November 16, 2015. Plaintiff then filed a
motion for an extension of time to file her amended complaint (Doc. 10), which the Court
granted, giving Plaintiff additional time, until December 14, 2015, to file an amended
complaint.
The deadline came and went, and the Court heard nothing from Plaintiff. Because
the Court had not heard from Plaintiff, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why
this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order and

Page 1 of 2

failure to prosecute (Doc. 12). Plaintiff was warned that her case would be dismissed if
she did not respond by January 27, 2016 (Doc. 11). Once again, the deadline passed
without a word from Plaintiff.
“Once a party invokes the judicial system by filing a lawsuit, it must abide by the
rules of the court; a party cannot decide for itself when it feels like pressing its action and
when it feels like taking a break . . . .” James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th
Cir. 2005). If a party fails to litigate its claims or otherwise abide by the court’s orders, the
court has the inherent authority to sua sponte dismiss the matter. Id.; O’Rourke Bros. Inc. v.
Nesbitt Burns, Inc., 201 F.3d 948, 952 (7th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the
Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
enter judgment and close this case on the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 28, 2016
_____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2