Shawanda Thomas v. DHL Supply Chain

W.D. Tennessee

Shawanda Thomas v. DHL Supply Chain

DecidedJune 23, 2026

Docket2:22-cv-02326

StatusUnknown

This text of Shawanda Thomas v. DHL Supply Chain (Shawanda Thomas v. DHL Supply Chain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shawanda Thomas v. DHL Supply Chain, (W.D. Tenn. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

) SHAWANDA THOMAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-2326-SHM ) DHL SUPPLY CHAIN, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On September 27, 2024, the Court closed this case administratively as Plaintiff Shawanda Thomas sought new counsel after her original counsel had withdrawn. (ECF No. 59.) On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff sent a document to the Court describing her difficulty in obtaining counsel and her various medical issues. (ECF No. 60.) On November 26, 2024, the Court held a status conference to discuss the issues Plaintiff raised in her November 15, 2024 filing. (ECF No. 61.) The Court allowed the case to remain administratively closed while Plaintiff sought counsel. Since then, Plaintiff has not filed anything in this case. On December 15, 2025, Defendant Exel Inc. d/b/a DHL Supply Chain (USA) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff has not responded. On May 22, 2026, the Court entered a show cause order giving Plaintiff thirty days to show why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 63.) The order was emailed to Plaintiff the

day it was entered. Plaintiff has not responded to the order and the time to do so has passed. Plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action. It is well settled that the Court has the authority and discretion to dismiss sua sponte a civil action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R, 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Consolidation Coal Co. v. Gooding, 703 F.2d 230 (6th Cir. 1983). “This measure is available to the district court as a tool to effect management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts and opposing parties.” Knoll v. AT&T, 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999). This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

So ordered this 23rd day of June, 2026.

/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

) SHAWANDA THOMAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-2326-SHM ) DHL SUPPLY CHAIN, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On September 27, 2024, the Court closed this case administratively as Plaintiff Shawanda Thomas sought new counsel after her original counsel had withdrawn. (ECF No. 59.) On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff sent a document to the Court describing her difficulty in obtaining counsel and her various medical issues. (ECF No. 60.) On November 26, 2024, the Court held a status conference to discuss the issues Plaintiff raised in her November 15, 2024 filing. (ECF No. 61.) The Court allowed the case to remain administratively closed while Plaintiff sought counsel. Since then, Plaintiff has not filed anything in this case. On December 15, 2025, Defendant Exel Inc. d/b/a DHL Supply Chain (USA) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff has not responded. On May 22, 2026, the Court entered a show cause order giving Plaintiff thirty days to show why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 63.) The order was emailed to Plaintiff the

day it was entered. Plaintiff has not responded to the order and the time to do so has passed. Plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action. It is well settled that the Court has the authority and discretion to dismiss sua sponte a civil action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R, 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Consolidation Coal Co. v. Gooding, 703 F.2d 230 (6th Cir. 1983). “This measure is available to the district court as a tool to effect management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts and opposing parties.” Knoll v. AT&T, 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999). This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

So ordered this 23rd day of June, 2026.

/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Shawanda Thomas v. DHL Supply Chain, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shawanda-thomas-v-dhl-supply-chain-tnwd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack