Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Long v. Henderson Co. Jail Medical Dept.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division

September 11, 2014

JAMES EARL LONG, Plaintiff,
v.
HENDERSON CO. JAIL MEDICAL DEPT. et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOSEPH H. McKINLEY, Jr., Chief District Judge.

By Order entered August 5, 2014, the Court provided Plaintiff with a second opportunity to respond to Defendants' motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to file a response to Defendants' motions within 30 days from the entry date of the Order would result in dismissal of this action with prejudice[1] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for failure to prosecute and to comply with an Order of this Court. The 30 days have passed without any response by Plaintiff.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal of an action if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) ("Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal."). "[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer." Id. "[T]he lenient treatment of pro se litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more generously than a represented litigant." Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Additionally, courts have inherent power "acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).

Plaintiff having failed to comply with a straightforward Court Order containing an easily understood deadline, the action will be dismissed by separate Order for failure to prosecute and to comply with an Order of this Court.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.