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