PEATE v. NUBBLE POND PARTNERS et al

Filing 37

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint against Defendant FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC, 36 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Objections to R&R due by 12/5/2022. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)

Case 2:22-cv-00179-JDL Document 37 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 3

PageID #: 125

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PAMELA PEATE,
Plaintiff,
v.
NUBBLE POND PARTNERS, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:22-cv-00179-JDL

RECOMMENDED DECISION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANT FRHP LINCOLNSHIRE, LLC
On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against several defendants. (ECF No.
1.) On September 3, 2022, a Summons was returned executed on Defendant FRHP
Lincolnshire, LLC, which summons reflected Defendant was served on September 2, 2022.
(ECF No. 30.)
On October 27, 2022, because no responsive pleading had been filed and because
Plaintiff had not moved for entry of default or default judgment, the Court ordered Plaintiff
to show cause, no later than November 10, 2022, as to why this matter should not be
dismissed as to Defendant FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC. (Order, ECF No. 36.) The Court
advised Plaintiff that if she failed to show cause, the Court could dismiss the complaint as
to Defendant FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC. (Id.)
To date, Defendant FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC has not filed a responsive pleading,
Plaintiff has not moved for entry of default or default judgment, and Plaintiff has not filed
a response to the Order to Show Cause. I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claim
1

Case 2:22-cv-00179-JDL Document 37 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 3

PageID #: 126

against Defendant FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC.
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 order. Here, Plaintiff has failed to show cause in accordance
with the Court’s Order to Show Cause. She has also failed to move for default or default
judgment against Defendant FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC. Plaintiff thus has failed to comply
with the Court’s order and has otherwise failed to prosecute her claim. Given Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the Court’s order and her failure otherwise to prosecute the matter
against Defendant FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC, dismissal is warranted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claim
against Defendant FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC.
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.

2

Case 2:22-cv-00179-JDL Document 37 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 3

PageID #: 127

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 21st day of November, 2022.

3