Hale v. Accu-Tec, Inc.

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 3/6/2018: The Court will dismiss this action by separate order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se) (JM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-656-JHM DUWAINE HALE PLAINTIFF v. ACCU-TEC, INC. DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Pro se Plaintiff, DuWaine Hale, initiated this suit against his former employer, Accu-Tec, Inc., by filing a complaint on his own paper Because under this Court’s Local Rules (LR), a pro se complaint should be written on this Court’s complaint form, see LR 5.2, the Clerk of Court issued a deficiency notice giving Plaintiff 30 days in which to complete and return the Court-approved complaint and summons form. That deficiency notice warned Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in the matter being brought to the attention of the Court. More than 30 days passed without compliance by Plaintiff. Therefore, by Order entered on January 17, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the Court-approved complaint form for employment discrimination and complete the summons form to be served upon Defendant within 30 days of entry of this Order. That Order warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint on this Court’s approved form with a summons for Defendant within 30 days may result in dismissal of the action. More than 30 days have passed with no 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: March 6, 2018 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4414.009 2

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?