Grant v. York et al

Filing 56

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/10/2020. 49 Defendant's motion for summary judgment GRANTED. 55 Defendant's motion for summary judgment DENIED as moot. Case DISMISSED under Civil L.R. 41(c) for lack of diligence. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Demetris Grant at Milwaukee County Jail)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
DEMETRIS GRANT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-41-pp-wed

SHERRI YORK,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(DKT. NO. 49), DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
(DKT. NO. 55) AND DISMISSING THE CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Demetris Grant, who is representing himself, sued defendant
Sherri York alleging that she gave him the wrong medication. Dkt. No. 12. On
November 15, 2019, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt.
No. 49. A few days later, on November 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge William
Duffin (to whom this court had referred the case for the handling of pretrial
matters) held a telephonic status conference to address then-pending discovery
motions. Dkt. No. 53.
After addressing the discovery motions, Judge Duffin reminded the
plaintiff that his opposition brief and other materials in response to the
defendant’s summary judgment motion were due on December 16, 2019. Id. at
3. The next day, Judge Duffin entered an order, again reminding the plaintiff to
respond to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 54. He
detailed the procedural requirements under the local rules and warned the

1

plaintiff that under Civil Local Rule 41(c) (E.D. Wis.), if the plaintiff did not
timely respond to the motion, the court could dismiss the case based on his
failure to diligently prosecute it.
The deadline for the plaintiff to respond to the motion passed over three
weeks ago, and the plaintiff has not filed his response. Under Civil L.R. 7(d),
“[f]ailure to file a memorandum in opposition to a motion is sufficient cause for
the court to grant the motion.” Further, as Judge Duffin explained to the
plaintiff, under Civil L.R. 41(c), “[w]henever it appears to the Court that the
plaintiff is not diligently prosecuting the action . . . the Court may enter an
order of dismissal with or without prejudice.”
The plaintiff has neither responded to the motion nor explained to the
court why he is unable to respond. His failure to oppose the defendant’s motion
is sufficient grounds for the court to grant the motion and his failure to
diligently prosecute his case is sufficient grounds for the court to dismiss the
case.
On December 20, 2019, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on
the plaintiff’s failure to respond to her motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No.
55. Under Civil L.R. 7(b), the plaintiff has twenty-one days to respond to the
defendant’s motion to dismiss. In this case, however, allowing the plaintiff to
respond amounts to giving him an extension of time to explain why he did not
do what Judge Duffin ordered him to do. Under the rules, the court may grant
the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to

2

oppose the motion and dismiss this case based on his failure to diligently
prosecute it. The court will deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot.
The court GRANTS the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based
on the plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion under Civil L.R. 7 and ORDERS
that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice under Civil L.R. 41(c) based
on the plaintiff’s failure to diligently prosecute it. Dkt. No. 49. The court will
enter judgment accordingly.
The court DENIES as moot the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on
the plaintiff’s failure to respond to her motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No.
55.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 10th day of January, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
Chief United States District Judge

3