Fugate v. Chester Bross Construction Co.

Filing 30

ORDER denying 27 motion for reconsideration. Signed on 12/1/15 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Copy mailed to Marcus W Fugate, OZARK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, 929 Honor Camp Lane, Fordland, MO 65652-7200. (Amos, Gloria)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
MARCUS WAYNE FUGATE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHESTER BROSS CONSTRUCTION CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-04014-SRB

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Marcus Wayne Fugate’s pro se motion construed as a motion
for reconsideration. (Doc. #27). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
On May 12, 2015, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and instructed
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint alleging sufficient facts to support his claim for
discrimination. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result
in a dismissal of his action. Plaintiff failed to amend his complaint within thirty days as
instructed by the Court. On June 23, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint as ordered by
the Court. Plaintiff was cautioned that, “[f]ailure to comply with the Court’s Order will result in
a dismissal of this action.” (Doc. #21). The Court supplied Plaintiff with a hard copy of each
order at the address provided to the Court by Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to respond and this action
was dismissed on July 8, 2015, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), for Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the Court’s May 12, 2015, Order.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s letter requesting the Court reconsider its
dismissal of this action and reopen the case. On November 16, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff

to provide the Court with proof that he timely submitted his Amended Complaint pursuant to the
Court’s orders. Plaintiff’s response was due by November 23, 2015. To date, the Court has not
received any response or documentation from Plaintiff that he submitted his Amended
Complaint“[o]n or about the beginning of June or end of May 2015.” (Doc. #27).
Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff’s letter (Doc. #25) to the Court can be construed
as a request for reconsideration, said motion is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Stephen R. Bough
STEPHEN R. BOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 1, 2015