AnnDell R. Lawrence, Jr. v. LaResha Reed, et al.

E.D. Missouri

AnnDell R. Lawrence, Jr. v. LaResha Reed, et al.

DecidedJanuary 23, 2026

Docket1:24-cv-00204

StatusUnknown

This text of AnnDell R. Lawrence, Jr. v. LaResha Reed, et al. (AnnDell R. Lawrence, Jr. v. LaResha Reed, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

AnnDell R. Lawrence, Jr. v. LaResha Reed, et al., (E.D. Mo. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

ANNDELL R. LAWRENCE, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-0204-MTS ) LARESHA REED, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant Christopher Smith and Defendant Seth Stephenson (together, “Defendants”)’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss. Doc. [38]. The Court has carefully considered the relevant briefing and finds the arguments therein well taken. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this action as to these Defendants largely for the reasons stated in their Memorandum in Support. Doc. [39]. Moreover, even setting aside the persuasiveness of Defendants’ arguments, dismissal is required for a separate reason. Defendants filed their Motion on December 01, 2025, approximately fifty-three days ago. Doc. [38]. The Eastern District of Missouri Local Rules state that “each party opposing a motion . . . must file” their response in opposition “within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion.” E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(B) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion, and his time for doing so has long passed. “The Court construes such failure as an abandonment of Plaintiff’s claims.” Thomas v. Walmart Stores, LLP, 4:13-cv-00565-HEA, 2014 WL 117645, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 13, 2014) (collecting cases and dismissing the action as to the relevant defendants); accord BKL Farms v. Monsanto Co., 4:17-cv-02418-SNLJ, 2022 WL 9285881, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 14, 2022) (“[A] plaintiff’s failure to address a defendant’s arguments on a motion to dismiss operates as an abandonment of those claims.” (quoting Huskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 486 F. Supp. 3d 1339, 1349 (E.D. Mo. 2020))). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant Christopher Smith and Defendant Seth Stephenson’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [38], is GRANTED. A separate Order of Partial Dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Defendant Christopher Smith and Defendant Seth Stephenson on the docket. Dated this 23rd day of January 2026. il Pe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

ANNDELL R. LAWRENCE, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-0204-MTS ) LARESHA REED, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant Christopher Smith and Defendant Seth Stephenson (together, “Defendants”)’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss. Doc. [38]. The Court has carefully considered the relevant briefing and finds the arguments therein well taken. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this action as to these Defendants largely for the reasons stated in their Memorandum in Support. Doc. [39]. Moreover, even setting aside the persuasiveness of Defendants’ arguments, dismissal is required for a separate reason. Defendants filed their Motion on December 01, 2025, approximately fifty-three days ago. Doc. [38]. The Eastern District of Missouri Local Rules state that “each party opposing a motion . . . must file” their response in opposition “within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion.” E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(B) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion, and his time for doing so has long passed. “The Court construes such failure as an abandonment of Plaintiff’s claims.” Thomas v. Walmart Stores, LLP, 4:13-cv-00565-HEA, 2014 WL 117645, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 13, 2014) (collecting cases and dismissing the action as to the relevant defendants); accord BKL Farms v. Monsanto Co., 4:17-cv-02418-SNLJ, 2022 WL 9285881, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 14, 2022) (“[A] plaintiff’s failure to address a defendant’s arguments on a motion to dismiss operates as an abandonment of those claims.” (quoting Huskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 486 F. Supp. 3d 1339, 1349 (E.D. Mo. 2020))). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant Christopher Smith and Defendant Seth Stephenson’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [38], is GRANTED. A separate Order of Partial Dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Defendant Christopher Smith and Defendant Seth Stephenson on the docket. Dated this 23rd day of January 2026. il Pe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

AnnDell R. Lawrence, Jr. v. LaResha Reed, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anndell-r-lawrence-jr-v-laresha-reed-et-al-moed-2026.