Medley et al v. JC Morgan Chase et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 8/22/2017: DISMISSING Defendant Rushmore from this action and DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Anne L. Medley)(jm)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ANNE L. MEDLEY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-CV-1716-JPS-JPS RUSHMORE, Defendant. ORDER On August 15, 2017, the Court dismissed “JC Morgan Chase” (“Chase”) as a defendant in this action pursuant to the recommendation of Magistrate Judge David E. Jones. (Docket #9). Magistrate Jones determined that Plaintiff had provided no evidence of service for Chase as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Docket #8). The sole remaining defendant, “Rushmore,” must now also be dismissed. According to the return of service provided by Plaintiff, Rushmore was served on February 7, 2017. (Docket #2 at 2). Rushmore has not filed an answer or otherwise mounted a defense to this lawsuit, and Plaintiff has not sought default judgment against it. On July 11, 2017, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 41(b), Magistrate Jones gave notice to Plaintiff that Rushmore would be dismissed within twenty-one days if she did not seek default judgment. (Docket #7). That time is now passed and the Court has received no motion for default judgment. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Rushmore be and the same is hereby DISMISSED from this action; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the same. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of August, 2017. BY THE COURT: ____________________________________ J. P. Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge Page 2 of 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?