Relue v. Freeland Group Restaurants

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

KIA RELUE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:24-CV-411-HAB-ALT ) FREELAND GROUP RESTAURANTS, ) SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, et al., ) d/b/a PIZZA HUT ) ) Defendant )

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pro se Plaintiff Kia Relue (“Relue”) filed this case against Defendants, claiming a host of employment law violations under various federal statutes. (ECF No. 1). Since she filed the case, Relue has disregarded this Court’s orders, including an order to appear for her deposition, and failed to prosecute her claims despite multiple warnings that dismissal could result. This inattention to her case and continued failure to take heed of the Court’s orders led to the Magistrate Judge sua sponte recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 27). That report and recommendation was filed on August 4, 2025. The parties were advised of the 14-day objection period under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). That deadline has passed without any objections filed by the parties. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739. As recounted above, the parties have not objected to the recommended disposition of the case, and for good reason. The Magistrate Judge issued a detailed decision and timeline demonstrating the efforts made by the Court to permit Relue to prosecute her claims. The Court set multiple show cause hearings and Relue was explicitly warned on June 16, 2025, and on June 30, 2025 (ECF Nos. 21, 24) that involuntary dismissal of her claims was a potential consequence of her nonappearances. She failed to appear for her deposition and ignored the warnings given.

The Magistrate Judge engaged in a thorough discussion of the relevant law and set forth the Plaintiff’s actions that demonstrated why dismissal was appropriate under both procedural rules. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and finds that the R & R is not clearly erroneous and is amply supported by the record. Accordingly, the Court adopts in its entirety Magistrate Judge Teel’s recommended disposition of the case. CONCLUSION

The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 27) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Relue’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1) and 41(b) and the Court’s inherent power to manage its own affairs as a result of Relue’s failure to appear as ordered, or to otherwise prosecute her case. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment against Relue and in favor of Defendant. SO ORDERED on September 2, 2025.

s/ Holly A. Brady__________________________ CHIEF JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT