Gordon v. Campanella et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING CASE: The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Gordon's claims for failure to prosecute. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/25/2017. (lmp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PATRICK GORDON, Plaintiff, v. J CAMPANELLA et al., Defendants. No. 17-cv-143-DRH-SCW MEMORANDUM and ORDER HERNDON, District Judge: Background Plaintiff Patrick Gordon brought this pro se action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Gordon’s lawsuit stems from allegations that prison officials and staff denied him treatment for an ear infection. When plaintiff Gordon first filed the underlying lawsuit he was an inmate incarcerated at Vienna Correctional Center (Doc. 1). Thereafter, on August 15th and 25th of 2017, mail sent to plaintiff by the Court was returned as undeliverable (Docs. 34 & 35). Magistrate Judge Williams set the matter for a status conference on September 12, 2017. The Court’s notice of hearing warned plaintiff that his “failure to appear may result in dismissal of this suit for lack of prosecution.” (Doc. 36). Following the notice, but prior to the status conference, on September 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address wherein he provided a new address in Evanston, Illinois (Doc. 37). Magistrate Williams nonetheless held the Status Page 1 of 3 Conference on September 12th, and plaintiff did not appear (Doc. 39). Magistrate Williams then set this matter for a Show Cause Hearing on October 3, 2017. (Id.). Plaintiff was ordered to show cause as to why this suit should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and the order warned that “PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE IS MANDATORY. FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL AND/OR SANCTIONS.” (Id.). However, on the date of the hearing, plaintiff failed to appear, and yet no mail has been returned to the Court as undeliverable. Law Under Rule 41(b), a court may dismiss an action with prejudice “if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules] or a court order.” FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b). A district court should dismiss a suit under Rule 41(b) “when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, or when other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailing.” Salata v. Weyerhauser Co., 757 F.3d 695, 699 (7th Cir. 2014)(quoting Webber v. Eye Corp., 721 F.2d 1067, 1069 (7th Cir. 1983)) (internal quotations omitted). In addition, district courts have an inherent power to dismiss suits due to a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). This power is necessary in order to prevent unnecessary delays in disposing of pending cases and to avoid clogging the district courts’ calendars. Id. at 629 – 30. Analysis Page 2 of 3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Williams submitted a Report and Recommendation (Athe Report@) on October 4, 2017 (Doc. 49). The Report recommends that the Court dismiss plaintiff’s claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing Aobjections@ within 14 days of service of the Report. To date, none of the parties filed objections. The period in which to file objections has expired. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). Conclusion Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 49). The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Gordon’s claims for failure to prosecute for the reasons given in the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Herndon 2017.10.25 13:09:36 -05'00' United States District Judge Page 3 of 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?