ADAMS v. HOME DEPOT INC., THE

Filing 45

ORDER that the 44 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this order to plaintiff at the address on file and is directed to close this case. ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. N/M. Signed by Judge Katharine S. Hayden on 3/4/2025. (wh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANGELA ADAMS,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 23-4071 (KSH)(JSA)

v.
THE HOME DEPOT INC.,
ORDER
Defendant.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the report and recommendation (D.E.
44) of Magistrate Judge Allen, recommending the dismissal of this action for plaintiff Angela
Adams’s failure to prosecute, provide discovery, and comply with Court orders, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(f), 37, and 41(b); and
WHEREAS, the District Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.”); L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(2) (district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge,” and “may consider the
record developed before the Magistrate Judge, making his or her own determination on the basis
of that record.”); and
WHEREAS, plaintiff was noticed directly that the Court was contemplating dismissal for
failure to prosecute (D.E. 44, at 9 (directing service to be made to plaintiff herself)), see Dunbar
v. Triangle Lumber & Supply Co., 816 F.2d 126, 129 (3d Cir. 1987); and

1

WHEREAS, no party has filed objections to the report and recommendation, and the time
for filing objections has passed; and
WHEREAS, this Court has reviewed the record and given “reasoned consideration” to
the report and recommendation and the dispositive legal issues discussed therein, see EEOC v.
Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99-100 (3d Cir. 2017); and
WHEREAS, the record fully supports the report and recommendation’s conclusion that
the Poulis factors, see Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984),
support dismissal under the circumstances; the Court notes, in particular, that plaintiff was put on
notice in multiple court orders and personally at a conference before Judge Allen that failure to
prosecute her case would result in its dismissal; nonetheless, plaintiff failed to comply with
discovery and court orders, resulting in no litigation on the merits for over year and no ability for
defendant to prepare its defense; and
WHEREAS, neither the multiple extensions granted by Judge Allen nor the risk of losing
her attorney (who ultimately withdrew) prompted plaintiff to engage, even when advised of the
risk of dismissal, illustrating that lesser sanctions would not suffice,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS, on this 4th day of March, 2025,
ORDERED that the report and recommendation (D.E. 44) is ADOPTED; and it is
further
ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this order to plaintiff at the
address on file.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
/s/ Katharine S. Hayden
Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J

2