Ryan Ratliff v. Wexford Health Sources Inc. et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01598
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RYAN RATLIFF, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:24-cv-01598-GCS ) WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES INC. ) et al. ) ) Defendants, )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SISON, Magistrate Judge: On April 11, 2025, Defendants Nurse Ellison, Carissa Luking, Wexford Health Sources Inc., Melissa Wise filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case; Defendants Cheyenne Collins, Arren Hinkle, Latoya Hughes, and Clayten White filed a separate Motion for Summary Judgment on the same date. (Doc. 98, Doc. 101). As Plaintiff did not respond to the Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court, on July 30, 2025, directed Plaintiff to respond by August 29, 2025. (Doc. 107). Plaintiff did not respond. On September 11, 2025, the Court issued a Show Cause Order requiring Plaintiff to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 108). As of this date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order. Plaintiff has not participated in this case since February 2025. (Doc. 85).

Page 1 of 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to

dismiss the action or any claim against it.” In dismissing a case for lack of prosecution, the Seventh Circuit has indicated that a district court commits legal error “when it dismisses a suit ‘immediately after the first problem, without exploring other options or saying why they would not be fruitful.’” Sroga v. Huberman, 722 F.3d 980, 982 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Johnson v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 718 F.3d 731, 732-733 (7th Cir. 2013)). The Seventh Circuit has suggested that in addition to warning the plaintiff, the court must

consider essential factors such as “the frequency and egregiousness of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with other deadlines, the effect of the delay on the court’s calendar, and the prejudice resulting to the defendants.” Id. (citing Kruger v. Apfel, 214 F.3d 784, 786-787 (7th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiff failed to follow Court Orders by failing to respond to Defendants’

Motions, the Court’s Order dated July 30, 2025, directing Plaintiff to respond to the Motions for Summary Judgment, and the Court’s Show Cause Order dated September 11, 2025. (Doc. 98, Doc. 101, Doc. 107, Doc. 108). The Court has 140 cases on its docket, and if the Court permits this case to drag on further waiting for Plaintiff to respond, it will detrimentally impact the efficient and timely handling of its other cases. Accordingly,

the Court DISMISSES with prejudice this action pursuant to Rule 41(b). See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(b); see generally James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005). The

Page 2 of 5 case is CLOSED, and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. In an abundance of caution, and noting Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court informs

Plaintiff as follows. Plaintiff has two means of contesting this order: he may either request this Court review this order, or he may appeal the order to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. If Plaintiff chooses to request this Court to review the order, he should file a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Plaintiff must file the motion within twenty-eight (28) days of the entry of judgment; the deadline cannot

be extended. See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 59(e); 6(b)(2). The motion must also comply with Rule 7(b)(1) and state with sufficient particularity the reason(s) that the Court should reconsider the judgment. See Elustra v. Mineo, 595 F.3d 699, 707 (7th Cir. 2010); Talano v. Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation, Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2001). See also Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (stating that a party must

establish either manifest error of law or fact, or that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). So long as the Rule 59(e) motion is in proper form and timely submitted, the 30- day clock for filing a notice of appeal will be tolled. See FED. R. APP. PROC. 4(a)(4). The

clock will start anew once the undersigned rules on the Rule 59(e) motion. See FED. R. APP. PROC. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4), (a)(4)(B)(ii). However, if the Rule 59(e) motion is filed outside the

Page 3 of 5 28-day deadline or “completely devoid of substance,” the motion will not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal; it will expire 30 days from the entry of judgment. Carlson v.

CSX Transp., Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 826 (7th Cir. 2014); Martinez v. Trainor, 556 F.2d 818, 819– 820 (7th Cir. 1977). Again, this deadline can be extended only on a written motion by Plaintiff showing excusable neglect or good cause. In contrast, if Plaintiff chooses to go straight to the Seventh Circuit, he must file a notice of appeal from the entry of judgment or order appealed from within 30 days. See FED. R. APP. PROC. 4(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The deadline can be extended for a short

time only if Plaintiff files a motion showing excusable neglect or good cause for missing the deadline and asking for an extension of time. See FED. R. APP. PROC. 4(a)(5)(A), (C). See also Sherman v. Quinn, 668 F.3d 421, 424 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining the good cause and excusable neglect standards); Abuelyaman v. Illinois State University, 667 F.3d 800, 807 (7th Cir. 2011) (explaining the excusable neglect standard).

Plaintiff may appeal to the Seventh Circuit by filing a notice of appeal in this Court. See FED. R. APP. PROC. 3(a). The current cost of filing an appeal with the Seventh Circuit is $605.00. The filing fee is due at the time the notice of appeal is filed. See FED. R. APP. PROC. 3(e). If Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the entire filing fee up front, he must file a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP motion”). See FED. R. APP. PROC. 24(a)(1).

The IFP motion must set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See FED. R. APP. PROC. 24(a)(1)(C).

Page 4 of 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. . Digitally signed by Judge Sison DATED: October 16, 2025. □ “ee (Cit © donate: 2025.10.16 12:48:28 -05'00' GILBERT C. SISON United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5