Cloer v. U.S. Bank National Association

W.D. North Carolina

Cloer v. U.S. Bank National Association

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedJune 25, 2024

Docket5:23-cv-00167

StatusUnknown

This text of Cloer v. U.S. Bank National Association (Cloer v. U.S. Bank National Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cloer v. U.S. Bank National Association, (W.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-00167-KDB-SCR

DEBRA C. CLOER AND BARRY E. CLOER,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 5) filed April 11, 2024. Pro se Plaintiffs’ responses were due April 25, 2024, and on May 15, 2024 an Order to Show Cause was entered giving Plaintiffs additional time until June 17, 2024 to file their responses. In that Order, Plaintiffs were specifically warned that the failure to make a timely response might result in the dismissal of their claims with prejudice. (Doc. No. 7 at 2). Despite this generous extension of time and clear warning, Plaintiffs have not filed any responses to the motion nor have they otherwise prosecuted this action since its inception. The District Court has the inherent authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute and Rule 41(b) “provides an explicit basis for this sanction.” Doyle v. Murray, 938 F.2d 33, 34 (4th Cir. 1991). While the Court must exercise this sanction with restraint, it may dismiss an action after considering four factors: “(1) the plaintiff’s degree of personal responsibility; (2) the amount 1 of prejudice caused the defendant; (3) the presence of a drawn out history of deliberately proceeding in a dilatory fashion; and (4) the effectiveness of sanctions less drastic than dismissal.” Hillig v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 916 F.2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990). After considering these factors, and in the absence of any indication that Plaintiffs intend to pursue their claims, the Court will dismiss this action. ORDER NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED; and 2. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.

SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

Signed: June 25, 2024

Kenneth D. Bell United States District Judge woe

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-00167-KDB-SCR

DEBRA C. CLOER AND BARRY E. CLOER,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 5) filed April 11, 2024. Pro se Plaintiffs’ responses were due April 25, 2024, and on May 15, 2024 an Order to Show Cause was entered giving Plaintiffs additional time until June 17, 2024 to file their responses. In that Order, Plaintiffs were specifically warned that the failure to make a timely response might result in the dismissal of their claims with prejudice. (Doc. No. 7 at 2). Despite this generous extension of time and clear warning, Plaintiffs have not filed any responses to the motion nor have they otherwise prosecuted this action since its inception. The District Court has the inherent authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute and Rule 41(b) “provides an explicit basis for this sanction.” Doyle v. Murray, 938 F.2d 33, 34 (4th Cir. 1991). While the Court must exercise this sanction with restraint, it may dismiss an action after considering four factors: “(1) the plaintiff’s degree of personal responsibility; (2) the amount 1 of prejudice caused the defendant; (3) the presence of a drawn out history of deliberately proceeding in a dilatory fashion; and (4) the effectiveness of sanctions less drastic than dismissal.” Hillig v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 916 F.2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990). After considering these factors, and in the absence of any indication that Plaintiffs intend to pursue their claims, the Court will dismiss this action. ORDER NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED; and 2. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.

SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

Signed: June 25, 2024

Kenneth D. Bell United States District Judge woe

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cloer v. U.S. Bank National Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cloer-v-us-bank-national-association-ncwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack