Gater v. Caldwell

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: December 3, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00207
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

JERRY L. GATER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-00207-MTS ) TORI CALDWELL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 08, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint using the Court-provided civil complaint form as required by the Court’s Local Rule. See Doc. [5] (citing E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.06(A) (providing that self-represented plaintiffs must bring all actions on applicable forms)); see also Martinez v. Union Pac. R. Co., 82 F.3d 223, 227 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting the Court of Appeals “has upheld strict compliance by trial courts with their local rules”); Hinterberger v. City of Indianapolis, 966 F.3d 523, 528 (7th Cir. 2020) (explaining that “district courts may require strict compliance with their local rules”). In the Order, the Court admonished Plaintiff that, if he failed to comply, his failure would result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to comply, and the time for him to do so has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) (computing time). Because Plaintiff failed to comply, the Court will enter an Order of Dismissal herewith dismissing this action without prejudice. 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.”); Brent v. Hyundai Motor’s Am., 679 F. App’x 976, 977 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (district courts may sua sponte dismiss a case for a plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order). Dated this 3rd day of December 2024. □□ oat THEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-