Casanova v. Pfizer and Affiliates

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00396-MR-DCK

ASHLEY CASANOVA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER PFIZER, ACTALENT TEMPORARY ) AGENCY, GRAIL INC., PILGRIM ) CHICKEN COMPANY, TYSONS ) FOOD, BERRY GLOBAL, BEST CO., ) GENERAL MOTORS, GLENMARK ) PHARMA, CAPTAIN D’S, KELLY ) SERVICES TEMPORARY AGENCY, ) MARATHON STAFFING TEMPORARY ) AGENCY, NORTH CAROLINA HUMAN ) RELATIONS COMMISSION, UNION ) COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ) PLANET FITNESS, QUALITY INN, ) UNION COUNTY, NC, MONROE, NC, ) WENDY’S, LOWES WAREHOUSE, ) DOLLAR CONE ICE CREAM SHOP, ) DOLLAR TREE, NATIONAL GENERAL) INSURANCE, STATE FARM ) INSURANCE, TURNING POINT FOR ) WOMEN (NC), UNITED STATES ) POSTAL SERVICE, NORTH ) CAROLINA, BEST WESTERN, ) HAMPTON INN, WALMART, BP, ) NASA, INSTAGRAM, MARION ) HOLLOWAY, ROY COOPER, JOE ) BIDEN, UNION COUNTY ) POLICE/SHERIFF AND ) CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ROBERT ) BURNS, MECKLENBURG COUNTY ) POLICE, CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ) AND INMATES, MAX O. COGBURN, ) JR., SUSAN C. RODRIQUEZ, UNITED ) NATIONS, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ) WAKE COUNTY, NC, PHILLIP ) HUNTER LILES, and JAKE LNU, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Pro se Plaintiff Ashley Casanova filed this action on April 15, 2024, alleging various incidents of racial discrimination and other claims against numerous defendants. [Docs. 1, 4]. In an Order issued on May 15, 2024, the Complaint was dismissed on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Doc. 6]. The Plaintiff was granted 30 days within which to amend her Complaint, and she was cautioned that the failure to do so would result in this action’s dismissal without further notice. [Id.]. The Plaintiff has not amended her Complaint, and the time to do so has expired. The Plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action, and the Court is unable to proceed. This case will therefore be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,

630-33 (1962) (holding that, although Rule 41(b) does not expressly provide for sua sponte dismissal, Rule 41(b) does not imply any such restriction and

a court has the inherent power to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or violation of a court order). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: July 1, 2024

Martifi Reidinger ey Chief United States District Judge MS