Brintley v. Kensinger

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: April 23, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-10075
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES BRINTLEY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-10075

v. Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge RYAN KENSINGER et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________/ ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On February 7, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff failed to file a timely response and, to date, more than two months later, has still not done so. So, on April 11, 2024, this Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and placed him on notice that “failure to respond will result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Civil Rule 41(b).” ECF No. 7 at PageID.59. Plaintiff’s deadline was April 18, 2024, but he has not responded to that Order either. After making certain findings under Civil Rule 41(b), “[t]his Court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to prosecute.” United States v. Wallace, 592 F. Supp. 3d 612, 614 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630–32 (1962)); see also E.D. Mich. LR 41.2 (“[W]hen it appears . . . that the parties have taken no action for a reasonable time, the court may, on its own motion after reasonable notice or on application of a party, enter an order dismissing or remanding the case unless good cause is shown.”). Four factors govern such a

dismissal. See Carpenter v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 704 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Here, the four factors weigh in favor of dismissing the case sua sponte. The

reason for Plaintiff’s failure is not known, so the first factor is neutral. But Defendants are prejudiced by Plaintiff’s abandonment of his case, Plaintiff was warned about the potential consequences of his inaction, and a sanction short of dismissal would not be appropriate in this matter because Plaintiff has not responded

even once since his case was removed here—despite being represented by counsel. See United States v. Wallace, 592 F. Supp. 3d 612, 614 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (first citing Bullard v. Roadway Exp., 3 F. App’x 418, 421 (6th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)

(unpublished); and then citing Morley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:12-CV-14653, 2013 WL 2051326, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 14, 2013)). The three factors favoring dismissal outweigh the one neutral factor, so the case will be dismissed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED

under Civil Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

Dated: 4/23/2024 /s/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge