Braddy, et al v. Cummins Inc, et al
Filing
31
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 30 Report and Recommendations. The Clerk is Ordered to Dismiss this Case without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 7/17/13. (mlc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TIMOTHY L. BRADDY, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CUMMINS INC., et al.,
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. 3:10-CV-471
ORDER
This
matter
is
before
the
Court
on
Magistrate
Judge
Christopher A. Nuechterlein’s Report and Recommendation, filed on
June 20, 2013 (DE #30).
Upon due consideration, the Court hereby
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Clerk is
ORDERED to DISMISS THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
On May 29, 2013, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause
by June 14, 2013, why this case should not be dismissed for failure
to comply with the Court’s local rules. Specifically, only members
of the Court’s bar may represent parties before this Court, and in
this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Michael C. Hudson, was first
notified that he was not admitted to the bar of this Court on
December 20, 2010.
On January 3, 2011, Mr. Hudson advised the
Court he was aware he was not a member of the bar of this Court and
is in violation of this Court’s local rules.
In June 2013, Mr.
Hudson once again informed the Court he was aware he was not a
member of the bar of this Court, that he does not intend to seek
admission to the bar, and that he does not intend to make any
filings in the case as a result.
To date, Plaintiffs have not
responded to this Court’s order to show cause.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a plaintiff’s
case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute his claim or to
comply with court orders.
Plaintiffs have failed to comply with
this Court’s order and have made no effort to prosecute their claim
since it was transferred to this Court on November 9, 2010.
Moreover, they have provided no written documentation explaining
their inaction.
have
abandoned
Magistrate Nuechterlein assumed that Plaintiffs
their
case,
and
this
Court
reaches
the
same
assumption.
More than 14 days has passed and no party has filed any
objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2); see also Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904
(7th Cir. 1999) (explaining that the failure to file a timely
objection will result in the waiver of the right to challenge a
report
and
recommendation).
Therefore,
this
Court
adopts
Magistrate Nuechterlein's Report and Recommendation.
DATED: July 17, 2013
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
2
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?