You're viewing Docket Item 15 from the case Jackson v. FedEx Freight, Inc.. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 4:12-cv-04055-SOH Document 15 Filed 06/04/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 125

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

CLEOPHUS JACKSON

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CASE NO. 12-CV-4055

FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.



ORDER

DEFENDANT

On March 25, 2013, the Court entered an Order granting a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

filed by Plaintiff’s attorney. (ECF No. 13). The Order directed Plaintiff to notify the Court within

30 days that he has obtained new counsel or intends to proceed pro se. This 30-day period passed

with no response from Plaintiff. On April 30, 2013, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to

show cause by May 30, 2013, why he failed to respond to the Court’s Order. The Court cautioned

Plaintiff that a failure to respond and show cause would result in this action being dismissed.

Plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order and the time for doing so has passed.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the

grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the court. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the district court possesses the

power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court may dismiss

an action based on “the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order,” and such dismissal may

be with prejudice if there has been “a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.”

Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (internal quotations omitted).

As set out above, Plaintiff has failed to respond to two orders of the Court. Therefore, the

Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. While Rule 41(b) allows for dismissal with

prejudice, the Court finds that this harsh sanction is not warranted in this case. Accordingly,

Case 4:12-cv-04055-SOH Document 15 Filed 06/04/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 126

Plaintiff’s Complaint should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of June, 2013.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge