Young v. Wellpath Corporation LLC et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 1/10/2022: Because Young has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court by failing to file a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order. cc:counsel; Plaintiff, pro se (EAS)

Case 4:21-cv-00036-JHM-HBB Document 25 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 136

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21CV-00036-JHM
GERALD YOUNG

PLAINTIFF

V.
WELLPATH CORPORATION, LLC, et. al

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants Wellpath, LLC, Dr. Anna D’Amico, Lessye Crafton, Ron Carey, Dawn
Patterson, and Nurse Mefford moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12. [DN 20]. One month after this motion was filed, pro se Plaintiff Gerald Young had
not filed a response. The Court issued an Order giving Young an additional 30 days to respond to
the pending motion, and the Court warned Plaintiff “failure to comply with this Order will result
in dismissal of the action.” [DN 22]. Young has not filed a response, and the time to do so has
passed.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal of
an action if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district
court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some
latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training,
there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a
layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[T]he lenient treatment generally accorded
to pro se litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily
understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more generously than

Case 4:21-cv-00036-JHM-HBB Document 25 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 137

a represented litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (cleaned up).
Additionally, 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).
Because Young has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court by failing
to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, despite being warned that dismissal would
occur without compliance, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order.

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record

January 10, 2022

2