Matthew Mayer v. Village of Menomonee Falls, Jeremy Walz, Menomonee Falls Police Department, Mark Waters, and Eugene Neyhart

• Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01310
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MATTHEW MAYER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 24-CV-1310-SCD

VILLAGE OF MENOMONEE FALLS, JEREMY WALZ, MENOMONEE FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARK WATERS, and EUGENE NEYHART,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

In October 2024, Matthew Mayer filed a federal complaint against the Village of Menomonee Falls, Jeremy Walz (the Village trustee, and later president), the Menomonee Falls Police Department, Mark Waters (the chief of police), and Eugene Neyhart (a police captain). See Compl., ECF No. 1. Mayer, who is proceeding without a lawyer, later filed an amended complaint asserting that the defendants violated his constitutional rights, specifically his right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 3. On June 10, 2025, I granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and gave Mayer until July 1, 2025, to file a second amended complaint. See Decision & Order, ECF No. 27. Mayer has not filed a second amended complaint. At Mayer’s request, I extended the deadline twice. See Text Only Order, ECF No. 29; Text Only Order, ECF No. 31. After Mayer failed to file an amended complaint by the extended deadline, the defendants moved to dismiss this action in its entirety. See Defs.’ Mot., ECF No. 33. Rather than dismiss the case at that point, I gave Mayer one last chance to amend, warning him that failure to comply would result in dismissal with prejudice. See Rule 41 Notice, ECF No. 34 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and E.D. Wis. Civ. L. R. 41(c)). That notice gave Mayer until October 7, 2025, to file his amended complaint, but I still haven't received anything from him. A defendant may move to dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the federal] rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under [Rule 41(b)] .. . operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Jd. “A Rule 41(b) dismissal is appropriate when there is ‘a clear record of delay or contumacious behavior,’ or when other sanctions have proved unavailing.” 3 Penny Theater Corp. v. Plitt Theatres, Inc., 812 F.2d 337, 339 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Zaddack v. A.B. Dick Co., 773 F.2d 147, 150 (7th Cir. 1985); Webber v. Eye Corp., 721 F.2d 1067, 1069 (7th Cir. 1983)). There is a clear record of delay in this case. I granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim back in June 2025. Since then, Mayer has been given multiple opportunities to comply with the court’s order to file a second amended complaint. He has failed to do so. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 33, and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The clerk of court shall enter judgment that this entire action is dismissed with prejudice and that Mayer shall take nothing from any of the defendants by his complaint or amended complaint. SO ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2025.

len ©. (One i CDs United States Magistrate Judge