Parker v. Weber and Olcese, PLC et al

Filing 31

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case for Failure to Prosecute re 28 Report and Recommendation Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JHer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

April Parker,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 09-14753

Weber and Olcese, PLC, et al.,

Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAY 10, 2011 R&R AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Acting through counsel, Plaintiff April Parker filed this action against Defendants on
December 7, 2009.
On September 1, 2010, the parties stipulated that Plaintiff would be deposed on
September 13, 2010 (D.E. No. 17) and this Court entered an agreed upon order that she would be
deposed on that date. (D.E. No. 18).
After Plaintiff failed to appear for deposition as agreed, on September 17, 2010,
Defendants Weber & Olcese, Michael Olcese and Jeffrey Weber filed a “Motion to Dismiss as
Sanction for Plaintiff Failing to Comply with Discovery Order.” (D.E. No. 19).
This Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for issuance of a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Thereafter, on April 29, 2011, Magistrate Judge
Majzoub issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, no later than May 6, 2011,
“why her claims against all Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant

1

to Rule 41(b) or for failure to provide or permit discovery under Rule 37.” (D.E. No. 26). That
Order expressly warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to show good cause under this order may
result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.” (Id. at 2) (emphasis in original).
Thereafter, on May 9, 2011, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a response to the order stating that
“Plaintiff’s counsel has previously informed the Court that Plaintiff has failed/refused to contact
him after numerous attempts and request by Plaintiff’s counsel to do so. At present, Plaintiff’s
counsel’s position remains the same: this Court should take whatever [action it] deems necessary
regarding motion to dismiss.” (D.E. No. 27).
On May 10, 2011, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued her R&R, wherein she recommends
that the Court: 1) dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b);
and 2) deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (D.E. No. 28). That R&R advised the parties that
any objections to the R&R had to be filed within 14 days of service of the R&R. (Id. at 5).
No party has filed objections to the R&R and the time for doing so has passed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the May 10, 2011 R&R is ADOPTED. The Court hereby
ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED, in its entirety, pursuant to FED.
R. CIV. P. 41(b); and 2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: May 26, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

2

May 26, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer Hernandez
Case Manager

3