Beiersdorf v. Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility Staff et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 4/23/2019: GRANTING 37 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute; DENYING as moot 22 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Bill K. Beiersdorf at Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BILL K. BEIERSDORF,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-CV-38-JPS

WARDEN RONALD MALONE, DR.
TOM URBANOWICZ, DEBRA
TARKOWSKI, TINA WATTS, MARY
JO TRUNELL, HEATHER PAULSEN,
BRADLEY HOMPE, CINDY
O’DONNELL, LORI ALSUM, and
JOHN DOE,

ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff Bill K. Beiersdorf was an inmate housed at the Milwaukee
Secure Detention Facility. On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed this civil rights
action alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his dental
needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Docket #1). Specifically, he
alleges that between October 2016 and April 2018, he was not provided with
dental treatment to address his complaints of severe tooth pain. Id.
On November 1, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Docket #22). They argue that Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference
claim fails on the merits because the indisputable evidence shows that
Plaintiff was routinely provided with dental treatment to address his
complaints of pain each time that he requested treatment. Id. at 10–20. In
addition to summary judgment on the merits, Defendants also requested
summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Id. at 20–22.

On December 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of
his deadline to respond to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
(Docket #35). His response brief was due that day. See Civ. L. R. 56(b)(2).
Plaintiff indicated in his motion that his limited access to the resources
needed to prepare his response brief prevented him from completing a
timely submission. The Court granted Plaintiff an extension and set a new
summary judgment response deadline of January 3, 2019. (Docket #36).
Plaintiff’s response deadline has long since passed without a
response being filed or the Court receiving any other communication from
Plaintiff. On April 18, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action
in light of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute it. (Docket #37).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows the Court, upon
Defendants’ motion, to dismiss an action when “the plaintiff fails to
prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b). Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action by not responding to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and he has wasted the Court’s
time by requesting an extension of his response deadline with no intention
of actually filing a response. In light of these things, the Court will grant
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, deny their summary
judgment motion as moot, and dismiss this case. Consistent with Rule 41(b),
this dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits and is therefore
with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute (Docket #37) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Docket #22) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot; and
Page 2 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is
hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 23rd day of April, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3