Carter-Boyer v. United States

E.D. Missouri

Carter-Boyer v. United States

DecidedFebruary 20, 2025

Docket4:19-cv-03236

StatusUnknown

This text of Carter-Boyer v. United States (Carter-Boyer v. United States) 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

Carter-Boyer v. United States, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

D.D. CARTER-BOYER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:19-cv-03236-MTS ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court previously dismissed this action without prejudice when Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and subsequently failed to show cause for that failure to respond. See Doc. [22]. Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. [23]. The Court granted the Motion and provided Plaintiff another thirty days to respond to Defendant’s Motion. Doc. [24]; see also Boyko v. Anderson, 185 F.3d 672, 673–74 (7th Cir. 1999) (explaining that “the grant of [a] Rule 60(b) motion operates to vacate the original judgment”). Plaintiff then sought an additional forty-five days to respond, Doc. [25], which the Court provided, Doc. [27]. The Court admonished that if Plaintiff failed to respond within that time, the Court would dismiss the action with prejudice. Id. More than thirty-eight months have now passed, but Plaintiff has filed nothing. Consistent with the Court’s previous Order, the Court will dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. See Farraj v. Cunningham, 659 F. App’x 925, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (mem.) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's complaint “based on his failure to oppose the motions to dismiss”). In addition, dismissal is appropriate for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s Order to respond to the Motion, Doc. [27], and failure to prosecute this action in the months since then. See Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256, 1259 (8th Cir. 1997) (“A district court has the power to dismiss a litigant’s cause of action when the litigant fails to comply with the court’s orders.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (allowing for dismissal based on a plaintiff's failure to prosecute). An Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith that will dismiss this action with prejudice. Dated this 20th day of February 2025. |) | oo ul 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 EASTERN DIVISION

D.D. CARTER-BOYER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:19-cv-03236-MTS ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court previously dismissed this action without prejudice when Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and subsequently failed to show cause for that failure to respond. See Doc. [22]. Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. [23]. The Court granted the Motion and provided Plaintiff another thirty days to respond to Defendant’s Motion. Doc. [24]; see also Boyko v. Anderson, 185 F.3d 672, 673–74 (7th Cir. 1999) (explaining that “the grant of [a] Rule 60(b) motion operates to vacate the original judgment”). Plaintiff then sought an additional forty-five days to respond, Doc. [25], which the Court provided, Doc. [27]. The Court admonished that if Plaintiff failed to respond within that time, the Court would dismiss the action with prejudice. Id. More than thirty-eight months have now passed, but Plaintiff has filed nothing. Consistent with the Court’s previous Order, the Court will dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. See Farraj v. Cunningham, 659 F. App’x 925, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (mem.) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's complaint “based on his failure to oppose the motions to dismiss”). In addition, dismissal is appropriate for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s Order to respond to the Motion, Doc. [27], and failure to prosecute this action in the months since then. See Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256, 1259 (8th Cir. 1997) (“A district court has the power to dismiss a litigant’s cause of action when the litigant fails to comply with the court’s orders.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (allowing for dismissal based on a plaintiff's failure to prosecute). An Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith that will dismiss this action with prejudice. Dated this 20th day of February 2025. |) | oo ul UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carter-Boyer v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-boyer-v-united-states-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack