United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
December 11, 2014
LEWIS JAMES SEALS, JR, Plaintiff,
YELLOW CAB, D/B/A, CHECKER CAB, PREMIER TRANSPORTATION, HAM SMYTHE IV, et al, Defendants
Lewis James Seals, Jr., Plaintiff, Pro se, Memphis, TN.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARMIANE G. CLAXTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The instant case is before the Court, by way of Administrative Order 2013-05. On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff Lewis James Seals, Jr., a resident of Memphis, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint against Yellow Cab, D/B/A Checker Cab, Premier Transportation, Ham Smythe IV, et al, accompanied by a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis . (Docket Entries (" D.E.") 1 & 2.) On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was granted and Plaintiff was ordered to provide the Clerk with addresses for defendants Premier Transportation and Ham Smythe IV within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of the Order. (D.E. #4) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Order. On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why his case should not be recommended for dismissal for failure to prosecute. (D.E. # 5). The Clerk of the Court mailed the Show Cause Order to Plaintiff on November 12, 2014 and on November 17, 2017, a domestic return receipt indicating that the order had been delivered to Plaintiff's address was filed at docket entry # 6. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, " [i]f a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, " the matter may be involuntarily dismissed for failure to prosecute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). " Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits." Id. Although the language of Rule 41(b) appears to require a motion by the defendant, the Supreme Court has recognized that the " district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 48, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-32, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)).
Upon review, Plaintiff has both failed to prosecute his case by providing the information needed to serve process upon the Defendants and failed to comply with a court order requiring him to provide such information in a timely manner. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 41(b), it is recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute