Harrington v. Renzenberger, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 21 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson on 11/13/2017. This matter is dismissedwithout prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), subject to the conditions set forth herein.Mailed to pro se party Jakida Harrington by regular mail (ydm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case No. 17-2226-JAR-KGS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Jakida Harrington brought this action against her former employer,
Renzenberger, Inc., alleging claims of discrimination, wrongful termination, and hostile work
environment in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Americans with
Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101.1 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (Doc. 21) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and D. Kan. Rule
Plaintiff failed to file a response to the motion to dismiss and the time to do so has
expired.2 Under D. Kan. Rule 7.4,
Absent a showing of excusable neglect, a party or attorney who
fails to file a responsive brief or memorandum within the time
specified in D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d) waives the right to later file such
brief or memorandum. If a responsive brief or memorandum is not
filed within the Rule 6.1(d) time requirements, the court will
consider and decide the motion as an uncontested motion.
Ordinarily, the court will grant the motion without further notice.
As a result of Plaintiff’s failure to respond, the Court may grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss
The parties jointly stipulated to the dismissal of Defendant Hallcon Corporation (Doc. 10).
See D. Kan. R. 6.1(d)(2) (requiring a response to a dispositive motion to be filed within twenty-one days).
as uncontested.3 A pro se litigant is not excused from complying with the rules of the court and
is subject to the consequences of noncompliance.4
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b), subject to certain conditions should Plaintiff refile her complaint: (1) at the time of
refiling, Plaintiff must provide Defendant with all discovery responses and documents currently
outstanding; (2) Plaintiff shall promptly comply with all discovery requirements in the refiled
case; and (3) Plaintiff shall pay the fees Defendant incurred in filing the motion to dismiss in this
case. Should Plaintiff decide to refile this case and fail to meet any of the conditions set forth
above, the Court shall, upon Defendant’s motion, dismiss Plaintiff’s refiled case with prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERD BY THE COURT that Defendant Renzenberger, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (Doc. 21) is granted. This matter is dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), subject to the conditions set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2017
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff’s counsel was permitted to withdraw after providing Plaintiff with notice of case-related
information and deadlines; in its Order, the Court put Plaintiff on notice that she is personally responsible for her
case. Doc. 20.
Ogden v. San Juan Cty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277
(10th Cir. 1994) (insisting that pro se litigants follow procedural rules and citing various cases dismissing pro se
cases for failure to comply with the rules)).
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?