Erickson v. University of Kentucky et al

Filing 26

OPINION & ORDER: (1) Recommended Disposition 25 is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court; (2) this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ;(3) all remaining motions are DENIED as moot; and(4) this matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 3/4/2014. (CBD)cc: COR w/ copy to Heidi K. Erickson via US Mail, Lex Diary, Lex JC. Modified cc on 3/4/2014 (CBD).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-52-KSF
HEIDI K. ERICKSON

v.

PLAINTIFF

OPINION & ORDER

JOSEPH FINK, III.

DEFENDANT

**********
The plaintiff, Heidi K. Erickson, filed this pro se action against the defendants asserting
various federal and state claims related to their alleged failure to make reasonable accommodations
for her disability and by finding her guilty of plagiarism. On October 3, 2013, the Court dismissed
all of Erickson’s claims except for her claim against Joseph Fink, III, individually, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 [DE #11]. On December 23, 2013, a Scheduling Order was entered [DE #18]. At
the defendant’s request, a telephonic conference before Magistrate Judge Robert Wier was held on
January 30, 2014 to address the defendant’s contention that Erickson had failed to make her initial
disclosures as required by Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Erickson failed to
appear for this telephonic conference [DE #21]. Magistrate Judge Wier set this matter for a Show
Cause Hearing on February 10, 2014 [DE #22]. Erickson failed to appear at this hearing, and the
defendant moved to dismiss this matter for failure to prosecute [DE #24].
In his Recommended Disposition of February 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge Wier recounted
Erickson’s repeated failures to comply with Court orders [DE #25]. In light of these failures and the
1

defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, Magistrate Judge Wier determined that
dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the appropriate sanction.
Erickson has failed to file any objections to the Recommended Disposition, and the time for
so filing has expired. As a result, the Court has no further duty to independently review this matter.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, upon review, the Court agrees with the findings
and recommendations of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1)

the Recommended Disposition [DE #25] is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the
Court;

(2)

this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute;

(3)

all remaining motions are DENIED as moot; and

(4)

this matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.

This March 4, 2014.

2