Horton v. Security First Inc.

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 10/20/2017. On September 1, 2017 (DN 9 ), the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff directing her to file her right-to-sue letter in this action or to show cause why her Title VII lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to pursue administrative relief with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That Memorandum and Order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply within thirty days would result in dismissal. The thirty-day period has expired without a response from Plaintiff. By separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (CDR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
ANDREA A. HORTON

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-279-TBR

SECURITY FIRST INC.

DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Andrea A. Horton, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint
against her former employer Security First Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On September 1, 2017 (DN 9), the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff directing
her to file her right-to-sue letter in this action or to show cause why her Title VII lawsuit should
not be dismissed for failure to pursue administrative relief with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. That Memorandum and Order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply
within thirty days would result in dismissal.
The thirty-day period has expired without a response from Plaintiff. Courts have an
inherent power “acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have
remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will
dismiss the instant action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (governing involuntary dismissal).
Date:

October 20, 2017

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.009