Tyler v. Amtrak

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 2/8/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 2/11/16)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JAMES TYLER

lOlb FEB lOP

*
*

v.

2: 28

Cl.ERK'S OFFlr;~:
AT GREENBELT

*
*
*

Plaintiff

FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF t1ARYLAND

BY

._

"'f-'IJT l'

Civil No. PJM 15-1666

*
*

AMTRAK

*
*
*

Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff James Tyler brought this suit. pro se, against Defendant Amtrak pursuant to the
Age Discrimination

in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.c.

moves to dismiss the suit for lack of prosecution.
Tyler has been unavailable

and unresponsive

S

621, el seq.

Amtrak now

ECF No. 17. The Court, finding that Mr.

for approximately

six months, will GRANT

Amtrak's Motion and DISMISS all claims in this suit pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure
41 (b).
I.
On June 9, 2015, Mr. Tyler filed the two-page complaint in this suit, alleging violations
of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C.

S

621, el seq. ECF No. I. Amtrak filed an answer on July 30, 2015,

ECF NO.6, to which Mr. Tyler filed a response on August 12,2015. ECF No. II. On August 13,
2015, Amtrak responded to the Court's Scheduling Order, noting that it had been unable to reach
Mr. Tyler to discuss the Scheduling Order and possible settlement negotiations because his listed
phone number was incorrect. ECF No. 10. The following day, August 14,2015, Mr. Tyler filed
a Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 14, to which the Court issued a Memorandum Order,

-1-

instructing Mr. Tyler to file additional financial information, as well as the findings of the state
or local fair employment practices agency that investigated his case. ECF No. 13.
Mr. Tyler did not respond to the Court's Memorandum Order and has engaged in no
other activity on the docket since August 14,2015.
On December 14, 2015, Amtrak filed a status report per the Court's Scheduling Order,
stating that Mr. Tyler had been unresponsive to written discovery requests and had not appeared
for his noticed deposition.

ECF No. 14. In addition, Amtrak noted that Mr. Tyler's contact

information was not up to date, so Amtrak had been unable to serve him with its filings or
discovery requests or contact him by phone. ld.
On January II, 2016, Amtrak moved to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, or, in the
Alternative, to Compel Discovery Responses and Extend Summary Judgement Deadline.

ECF

No. 17. Mr. Tyler did not respond to this Motion.
Amtrak seeks dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for Mr. Tyler's
failure to prosecute the present suit, and Rule 37(d) for failure to respond to discovery requests,
including Tyler's failure to appear for his noticed deposition. See ECF Nos. 17, 17.1 at 3--4.
II.
Rule 41 (b) provides: "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a
court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it." Fed. R. Civ.
Pro. 41 (b). In assessing whether to dismiss under Rule 41 (b), the court should consider "(I) the
degree of personal responsibility

of the plaintiff, (2) the amount of prejudice caused the

defendant, (3) the existence of a drawn out history of deliberately proceeding in a dilatory
fashion, and (4) the existence of a sanction less drastic than dismissal." Kimble v. Colvin. No.

-2-

CIV. TMD 14-1988,2015

WL 3767183, at *1 (D. Md. June 16,2015)

(quoting Chandler

Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.1982) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Court finds that all four factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

First, Mr. Tyler is

entirely responsible for the delay. Since Mr. Tyler's Motion to Appoint Counsel on August 14,
2015, ECF No. 12, the docket reflects no activity on his part. He failed to respond the Court's
Memorandum Order to provide more information pertaining to his financial status, ECF No. 13,
as well as the present Motion to Dismiss. Furthermore, Amtrak's counsel attests that Mr. Tyler
failed to respond regarding the Court's July 31, 2015 Scheduling Order, Amtrak's

written

discovery requests, and his own noticed deposition. See ECF Nos. 17-2, 17-3.
Second, Mr. Tyler's failure to prosecute has caused Amtrak significant prejudice, because
it has been both unable to address his claims on the merits and to engage in settlement
discussions with Mr. Tyler. See ECF No. ECF 17-2 ~ 2. Third, Mr. Tyler now has a sufficiently
"drawn out history" of failure to prosecute: he has not responded to the Court's Orders or
Amtrak's motions and discovery requests for approximately six months.
Finally, there is no appropriate sanction besides dismissal. In addition to Mr. Tyler's clear
abandonment of the case, Amtrak's counsel attests that Mr. Tyler's contact information is out of
date. The documents Amtrak attempted to serve on Mr. Tyler were returned undeliverable and
his listed phone number from the EEOC Charge of Discrimination is incorrect. See ECF No. 172 ~~ 2-7.
Accordingly, the Court finds that all four factors pursuant to Rule 41 (b) weigh in favor of
dismissal.

-3-

Ill.

Therefore, Amtrak's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, ECF No. 17,
GRANTED, and all of Mr. Tyler's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

A separate Order will ISSUE.

lsI

UNI
February --.92016

-4-

TER J. MESSITTE
TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

IS