Lilly v. Norman et al

Filing 38

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 36 MOTION to Dismiss Party Healther Cato Annesser and Warren Moore filed by Defendant Heather Cato, Defendant Warren Moore motion is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 1/30/2013. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAROD LILLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF NORMAN, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:11CV0088

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Heather Cato Annesser and
Warren Moore’s (“Defendants) Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 36]. Plaintiff has not filed
an opposition to the motion. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants Motion to
Dismiss is granted.
Discussion
Defendants seek a dismissal due to Plaintiff’s disregard to the Court’s pretrial
scheduling order [ECF No. 33] by failing to provide his disclosures pursuant to Rule
26, by failing to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests, and by failing to
communicate altogether with Defendants and the Court.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil provides the following:
“Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If 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. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal
under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule–except for lack
of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19–operates
as an adjudication on the merits.”

On April 24, 2012, the Court issued a Case Management Order [ECF No. 33]
which ordered Plaintiff Lilly to provide disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 to
Defendants no later than May 24, 2012. Further, the Court ordered Plaintiff to engage
in discovery, which was to be completed by July 23, 2012. To date, Plaintiff has failed
to comply with the Court’s Case Management Order and engage in discovery as
instructed. Plaintiff has not filed a single pleading with this Court since August 21,
2011–over seventeen months ago from today’s date. Plaintiff has had substantial time
to prosecute this case against Defendants; however, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff
has abandoned his claims altogether. The Court has given Plaintiff ample time to
provide disclosures and respond to Defendants’ motions, and Plaintiff has failed to do
so. As such, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants shall be dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Heather Cato Annesser and
Warren Moore’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 36] is GRANTED.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2013.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2