Dennison v. Daviess Co.

W.D. Kentucky

Dennison v. Daviess Co.

DecidedMarch 29, 2023

Docket4:22-cv-00073

StatusUnknown

This text of Dennison v. Daviess Co. (Dennison v. Daviess Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dennison v. Daviess Co., (W.D. Ky. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22CV-00073-JHM CODY ALLEN DENNISON PLAINTIFF V. DAVIESS COUNTY and SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. [DN 19, DN 21]. The Court issued an Order for Plaintiff Cody Allen Dennison to respond to the pending motions within 30 days, and the Court warned Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action.” [DN 22]. Plaintiff has not filed a response, and the time to do so has passed. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal of an action if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[T]he lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more generously than a represented litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (cleaned up). Additionally, courts have an inherent power “acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link vy. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court by failing to file a response to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order.

Ar layf Joseph H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge ce: Plaintiff, pro se United States District Court Counsel of Record March 28, 2023

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22CV-00073-JHM CODY ALLEN DENNISON PLAINTIFF V. DAVIESS COUNTY and SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. [DN 19, DN 21]. The Court issued an Order for Plaintiff Cody Allen Dennison to respond to the pending motions within 30 days, and the Court warned Plaintiff that “failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action.” [DN 22]. Plaintiff has not filed a response, and the time to do so has passed. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal of an action if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[T]he lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more generously than a represented litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (cleaned up). Additionally, courts have an inherent power “acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link vy. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court by failing to file a response to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order.

Ar layf Joseph H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge ce: Plaintiff, pro se United States District Court Counsel of Record March 28, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dennison v. Daviess Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennison-v-daviess-co-kywd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack