Prescott v. Louisville Ladder, Inc.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For these reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's orders. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern on 12/21/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af) Modified on 12/22/2016 (af).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
JERRY W. PRESCOTT,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00240
Magistrate Judge Newbern
LOUISVILLE LADDER, INC.,
To The Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 7, 2016, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff Jerry Prescott’s attorneys to
withdraw from his representation. (Doc. No. 28.) In that Order, the Court directed Prescott to file
notice by October 28, 2016, of whether he had retained new counsel or would go forward pro se.
(Id.) The Court also set a Case Management Conference for November 4, 2016, and directed
Prescott to appear pro se if he was not represented. (Id.)
Prescott did not appear at the Court’s November 4, 2016 Case Management Conference.
On that date, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Doc. No. 30.) The
Order to Show Cause required Prescott to respond on or before December 7, 2016. (Id.) Prescott
accepted service of the Order to Show Cause on November 12, 2016. (Doc. No. 32.)
Prescott did not respond and has not filed anything with the Court since his counsel
moved to withdraw in July 2016. (Docs. No. 22, 26.) Defendant Louisville Ladder, Inc., filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment on October 25, 2016, which was served on Plaintiff but to which
Plaintiff has not responded. (Doc. No. 29.) Further, a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s
counsel’s Motion to Withdraw filed by Defendant Louisville Ladder, Inc., states that Plaintiff
failed to respond to discovery requests and did not meet established discovery deadlines. (Doc.
No. 27.) This matter is set for a jury trial on March 14, 2017. (Doc. No. 18.)
For these reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this matter be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute
and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962).
Any party has fourteen (14) days from the receipt of this Report and Recommendation in
which to file any written objections to it with the District Court. Any party opposing said
objections shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of any objections filed in which to file any
responses to said objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections within
fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further
appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Cowherd v. Million,
380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
Entered this 22nd day of December, 2016.
ALISTAIR E. NEWBERN
United States Magistrate Judge
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?