BOLES ET AL. V. ELI LILLY AND CO.

Filing 62

ORDER - The Court DISMISSES Ms. Boles' claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/6/2016. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. (GSO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
NATASHA LYNETTE BOLES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ELI LILLY AND CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-00351-JMS-DKL

ORDER
On March 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed
by counsel for Plaintiff Natasha Boles. [Filing No. 60.] The Magistrate Judge stated “[o]n or
before April 18, 2016, Ms. Boles shall advise the court, in writing, if she intends to pursue this
case with counsel or if she intends to pursue this matter representing herself (pro se). Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with this order will result in the undersigned recommending dismissal of her case
without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” [Filing No. 60 at 1 (emphasis omitted).] Ms. Boles
did not advise the Court by April 18, 2016 whether she intends to pursue this action and, in fact,
has not done so to date. On April 26, 2016, the Magistrate Judge noted that Ms. Boles had failed
to comply with the March 22, 2016 Order, and recommended that her case be dismissed for failure
to prosecute her claims. [Filing No. 61.]
Because Ms. Boles failed to comply with the March 22, 2016 Order – even after being
warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of her claims – the Court finds that
dismissal of her claims without prejudice is appropriate. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
630-31 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally
been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily

vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.”); see also GCIU Employer Retirement Fund v. Chicago Tribune Co., 8 F.3d
1195, 1198-99 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] party cannot decide for itself when it feels like pressing its
action and when it feels like taking a break because trial judges have a responsibility to litigants to
keep their court calendars as current as humanly possible.” (quotation omitted)).
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Ms. Boles’ claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to prosecute.

Date: July 6, 2016

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

Distribution via United States Mail to:
Natasha Lynette Boles
3525 Normandy Ave.
Apt. 206
Rockford, IL 61103