Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Crews v. Platolene 500

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


April 13, 2006

DIANA CREWS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PLATOLENE 500, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GILBERT, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Platolene 500, Inc.'s ("Platolene") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14). Platolene filed this motion on January 12, 2006, and plaintiff Diana Crews ("Crews") has failed to respond. On March 29, 2006, this Court ordered (Doc. 16) Crews to show cause on or before April 10, 2006, why it should not construe her failure to respond to the motion as an admission of its merits, grant the motion and enter judgment against her. See S.D. Ill. Local R. 7.1(c). Alternatively, the Court gave her until April 10, 2006, to show cause why the Court should not consider her failure to respond to the motion as a failure to prosecute and therefore dismiss her action for want of prosecution. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 1995) ("District courts possess the inherent authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for want of prosecution as part of the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.") (internal quotations and citations omitted). Crews failed to respond to the show cause order. Therefore, pursuant to that order, the Court construes her failure to respond to the motion as an admission of its merits. As Platolene has shown it is entitled to relief in its motion and Crews has admitted as much, the Court GRANTS the motion (Doc. 14). As such, Crews' claims against Platolene are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Alternatively, the Court construes her failure to respond to the motion as a failure to prosecute and hereby DISMISSES the case FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20060413

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.