Gibson v. Lafayette City of Police Department

N.D. Indiana

Gibson v. Lafayette City of Police Department

DecidedAugust 7, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-00061

StatusUnknown

This text of Gibson v. Lafayette City of Police Department (Gibson v. Lafayette City of Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibson v. Lafayette City of Police Department, (N.D. Ind. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE

MELLISSA GIBSON, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CAUSE NO.: 4:23-CV-61-GSL-JEM ) LAFAYETTE CITY OF POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, et al., ) Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and Local Rule 72-1

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On June 18, 2025, during a telephonic hearing at which Plaintiff was present, the Court entered an order [DE 49] setting this matter for a status hearing for August 7, 2025, and ordered the parties to appear telephonically. Plaintiff Gibson failed to appear without explanation. Plaintiff Gibson previously failed to appear for a status hearing on December 12, 2024. In addition, the Court held status conferences on March 13, 2025, and June 18, 2025, in which Plaintiff was reminded or her obligation to participate in the discovery process. Plaintiff has filed no discovery requests and failed to appear for her properly-noticed deposition. Counsel for Defendants represent that she had no contact h with Plaintiff either before or after the missed deposition. On July 11, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution [DE 50]. Plaintiff has failed to respond to that motion. Accordingly, in light of Plaintiff’s failure to appear, particularly in light of her failure to participate in discovery or attend her deposition, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS this matter without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the matter. 1 This Report and Recommendation is submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Recommendation to file written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court. The failure to file a timely objection will result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999); Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 1994); Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260-61 (7th Cir. 1989). SO ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2025. s/ John E. Martin_______________ MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT cc: All counsel of record Plaintiff, pro se, Mellissa Gibson,1317 Underwood Street, Lafayette, IN 47904 via certified and regular mail Judge Gretchen S. Lund

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE

MELLISSA GIBSON, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CAUSE NO.: 4:23-CV-61-GSL-JEM ) LAFAYETTE CITY OF POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, et al., ) Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and Local Rule 72-1

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On June 18, 2025, during a telephonic hearing at which Plaintiff was present, the Court entered an order [DE 49] setting this matter for a status hearing for August 7, 2025, and ordered the parties to appear telephonically. Plaintiff Gibson failed to appear without explanation. Plaintiff Gibson previously failed to appear for a status hearing on December 12, 2024. In addition, the Court held status conferences on March 13, 2025, and June 18, 2025, in which Plaintiff was reminded or her obligation to participate in the discovery process. Plaintiff has filed no discovery requests and failed to appear for her properly-noticed deposition. Counsel for Defendants represent that she had no contact h with Plaintiff either before or after the missed deposition. On July 11, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution [DE 50]. Plaintiff has failed to respond to that motion. Accordingly, in light of Plaintiff’s failure to appear, particularly in light of her failure to participate in discovery or attend her deposition, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS this matter without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the matter. 1 This Report and Recommendation is submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Recommendation to file written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court. The failure to file a timely objection will result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999); Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 1994); Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260-61 (7th Cir. 1989). SO ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2025. s/ John E. Martin_______________ MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT cc: All counsel of record Plaintiff, pro se, Mellissa Gibson,1317 Underwood Street, Lafayette, IN 47904 via certified and regular mail Judge Gretchen S. Lund

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gibson v. Lafayette City of Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-lafayette-city-of-police-department-innd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack