Garrett v. Laughter et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 8/8/2019. (BDG) Opinion mailed to Garrett.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
COREY GARRETT,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY TERPSTRA,
Defendant.
No. 1:18-CV-48-HSM-CHS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 2, 2019, the Court
entered an order screening the complaint and providing that Plaintiff had thirty days from the date
of entry of the order to return service packets for the remaining Defendant [Doc. 8]. The Court
warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with that order, the Court could dismiss this
action [Id. at 5]. More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with this order
or otherwise communicated with the Court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) gives this Court the authority to dismiss a case for
“failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” See,
e.g., Nye Capital Appreciation Partners, L.L.C. v. Nemchik, 483 F. App’x 1, 9 (6th Cir. 2012);
Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362–63 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court examines four
factors when considering dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b):
(1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether
the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the
dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and
(4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was
ordered.
Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005); see Reg’l Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland
Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150, 155 (6th Cir. 1988).
As to the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to or comply with
the Court’s previous order is due to Plaintiff’s willfulness and/or fault. Specifically, it appears that
Plaintiff received the Court’s order, but chose not to comply therewith. As such, the first factor
weighs in favor of dismissal.
As to the second factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s
order has not prejudiced Defendant.
As to the third factor, the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court could dismiss this case if
he failed to comply with the Court’s order [Doc. 8].
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be
effective. Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis [Doc. 4] in this matter, and therefore, lacks
the resources to be sanctioned monetarily.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh in favor
of dismissal of Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41(b) and the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal
from this order would not be taken in good faith.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.
/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?