Missel v. CSX Transportation, Inc. et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting 38 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice plaintiffs claims against CSX Transportation, Inc. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment reflecting the same at the closeof the case. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/20/17. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES MISSEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CXS TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
and UNITED TRANSPORTATION
UNION
No. 16-cv-1300-DRH-DGW
ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Now before the Court is Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.’s February 28,
2017 motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims pertaining to CSX Transportation, Inc.,
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 38).
On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff Charles Missel sought leave to amend his
complaint after defendant filed its motion to dismiss (Doc.41). On that same day,
plaintiff also requested an extension of time in which to respond to the motion to
dismiss “pending this Court’s ruling on his Motion to File his First Amended
Complaint” (Doc.42). The Court denied the motion for leave to file an amended
complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1 (Doc. 43).
Given the Court denying leave to file an amended complaint, the Court also denied
as moot the motion for extension of time the same day (February 13, 2017)
(Doc.44). Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the pending motion to dismiss was

Page 1 of 2

March 13, 2017. However, no pleadings relative to the motion were filed following
the Court’s order.
Furthermore, as of today’s date, plaintiff has not responded to the motion
to dismiss. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court considers the failure to
respond as an admission of the merits of the motion to dismiss. 1 Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (Doc. 38). The Court DISMISSES with
prejudice plaintiff’s claims against CSX Transportation, Inc. Further, the Court
DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same at the close
of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 20th day of May, 2017.

Judge Herndon
2017.05.20
06:59:14 -05'00'
United States District Judge

1

Local Rule 7.1(c) provides in part: “Failure to timely file a response to a motion may, in the
Court’s discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the motion.”
Page 2 of 2