ADAMS v. POLAND SPRING WATER CO OWNER et al

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint filed by JUSTAN ADAMS, 6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Objections to R&R due by 1/16/2018. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JUSTAN ADAMS,
Plaintiff
v.
POLAND SPRING WATER
CO OWNER, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:17-cv-00355-DBH

RECOMMENDED DECISION
BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint and an Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 4.) The Court granted the motion on November 15, 2017
(ECF No. 5), and ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court no later than December 5, 2017, of his
intent to proceed with this action and to acknowledge in his notice that he understands his
obligation to pay the complete filing fee as the requisite funds become available to him.
Through the order, the Court informed Plaintiff that a failure to comply with the order would
result in a dismissal recommendation.
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the order, on December 11, 2017, the Court
issued an Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 6.) In the Show Cause Order, the Court
established December 27, 2017, as the date by which Plaintiff was to show cause in writing
as to why he failed to comply with the Court’s order requiring that he notify the Court of his
intent to proceed with this action. The Court again advised Plaintiff that if he failed to show
cause, his complaint could be dismissed. Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause

Order, and has not otherwise communicated with the Court. Given Plaintiff’s failure to show
cause, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter without prejudice.
Discussion
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss
a case sua sponte for any of the reasons prescribed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” CintronLorenzo v. Dep’t de Asumtos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 526 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing Link
v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 – 31 (1962)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
authorizes the Court to dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with the Court’s orders. Here, Plaintiff has (a) failed to comply with the Court’s
November 15, 2017, Order that required Plaintiff to notify the Court of Plaintiff’s intent to
proceed (ECF No. 5), and (b) failed to show cause in accordance with the Court’s Order to
Show Cause. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff thus has not only failed to comply with two of the
Court’s orders, but insofar as he has not notified the Court of his intent to proceed, Plaintiff
has also failed to prosecute his claim.
Given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders, his failure otherwise to
prosecute the action, and his lack of communication with the Court following the filing of the
complaint and Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on November 6, 2017
(ECF No. 4), dismissal is warranted.

2

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice.1
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14)
days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to
de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.

/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2018.

1I

note that the docket reflects that the Order to Show Cause that was forwarded to Plaintiff was returned as
undeliverable. (ECF No. 7.) The fact that Plaintiff might not have received the Order to Show Cause does not
alter the recommendation. Parties to litigation have a duty to inquire periodically regarding the status of the
litigation and to keep the court informed of their current address and contact information. United States v.
Guerrero, 302 Fed. App’x 769, 771 (10th Cir. 2008); Lewis v. Hardy, 248 Fed. App’x 589, 593 (5th Cir.
2007) (per curiam); Carvel v. Durst, No. 1:09-cv-06733, 2014 WL 787829, at *1 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25,
2014); Am. Arbitration Ass’n, Inc. v. Defonseca, No. 1:93-cv-02424, 1997 WL 102495, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
6, 1997) (“[A] litigant’s obligation to promptly inform the Court and the opposing party of an address change
is a matter of common sense, not legal sophistication.”); see also Information for Pro Se Parties,
Responsibilities of the Pro Se Litigant ¶ 6: “You must keep the Court and the other party advised of any
change of your address or telephone number. … Failing to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions,
which could include the dismissal of your case.” (United States District Court, District of Maine handout for
pro se litigants, also available online).

3