Bass et al v. Leatherwood et al

Filing 59

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 58 TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF MYRON BASS. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 4/24/14. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
MYRON BASS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
TOM LEATHERWOOD, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 13-2882-JDT-tmp

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF MYRON BASS

Plaintiffs Myron Bass, Karen Mobley, and Lawrence Everett Reed, residents of
Shelby County, Tennessee, filed a pro se civil complaint on November 12, 2013. (Docket
Entry 1.) United States Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham1 subsequently set a scheduling
conference for February 20, 2014. (D.E. 29.) At the conclusion of the conference,
Magistrate Judge Pham issued an order directing Plaintiff Bass to show cause, in writing and
no later than March 3, 2014, why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
(D.E. 41.) Bass was warned that failure to respond could result in the dismissal of his claims.
(Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff Bass did not respond to the order to show cause. Therefore, on April 3, 2014,
Magistrate Judge Pham issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he
1

In accordance with Administrative Order 2013-05, the assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge is responsible
for case management and handling of all pretrial matters by determination or by report and recommendation, as
appropriate.

recommended that Bass’s claims be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (D.E. 58.) Objections
to the R&R were due within 14 days, on or before April 21, 2014. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1), (d). However, Bass has filed no objections.
Magistrate Judge Pham noted in the R&R that Plaintiff Bass failed to attend the
scheduling conference and that Plaintiffs Mobley and Reed stated they had not heard from
him. Bass also did not participate with the other parties in the Rule 26(f) planning meeting.
Furthermore, Bass did not sign either the Plaintiffs’ pending motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint (D.E. 31) or any of the three documents filed by Plaintiffs since the entry
of the show cause order (D.E. 47, 48, & 51). The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff
Bass’s failure to prosecute was due to willfulness and bad faith and that Defendants have
been prejudiced by that failure. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that
Bass’s claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff Bass apparently
has abandoned any interest in this action. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R. Plaintiff Bass’s claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to
prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2