Shields v. University of Michigan

Filing 20

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DEBRA SHIELDS, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 12-14748 Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE On May 24, 2013, shortly after the close of the discovery period in this case, Plaintiff filed an application for order of dismissal without prejudice. Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s application. Plaintiff is not entitled to dismissal of her action without prejudice at this stage of the case, absent Defendant’s acquiescence, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1), or a dismissal upon order of the Court (with or without prejudice, at the Court’s discretion), see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Shortly after Plaintiff filed her application for order of dismissal without prejudice, Defendant filed a timely Motion to Dismiss and a timely Motion for Summary Judgment, both of which sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s action with prejudice. After Plaintiff failed to timely respond to either of Defendant’s Motions, the Court issued Plaintiff an Order to Show Cause, wherein the Court ordered “Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before August 5, 2013, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” The Court also ordered that Plaintiff was required “to file a separate response to each Motion (and separate from the response to the Order to Show Cause) no later than August 5, 2013.” Finally, the Court stated that, “[i]f Plaintiff’s response(s) to the Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment is (are) not filed by August 5, 2013, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute to have prejudiced Defendant, and the case against Defendant will be dismissed with prejudice.” Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, nor has Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In fact, Plaintiff has filed nothing in the ten weeks since filing her application to dismiss this matter without prejudice. In light of the foregoing facts, namely that: (1) Plaintiff did not ask for dismissal without prejudice until the discovery period had closed; (2) Plaintiff failed to respond to either of Defendant’s motions; (3) Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause; and (4) in the Order to Show Cause, the Court warned Plaintiff that her case would be dismissed with prejudice if she did not file a response to either or both of Defendant’s motions; the Court finds that the interests of justice dictate that Plaintiff’s cause of action must be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s cause of action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: August 12, 2013 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?