Wade v. Wells et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 05/05/17. Mailed to pro se party Majesty Wade by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CASE NO. 16-3165-SAC-DJW
(FNU) WELLS, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 14, 2017, U.S. Magistrate Judge Waxse entered an order
directing plaintiff to show cause on or before April 28, 2017, why
this matter should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim for
relief. Plaintiff has failed to file a response.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a federal district
court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order.
Rule 41(b) states:
If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the
action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order
states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b)
and any dismissal not under this rule – except one for lack
of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party
under Rule 19 – operates as an adjudication on the merits.
Rule 41(b) has been interpreted to allow courts to dismiss
actions sua sponte where a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order
or with the rules of civil procedure. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E.
Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 n.2 (10th Cir. 2007)(quoting Olsen v.
Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)).
Because plaintiff has failed to respond to the order entered by
Magistrate Judge Waxse, the Court concludes this matter may be
dismissed under Rule 41(b).
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is dismissed
without prejudice under Rule 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 5th day of May, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
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?