United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
June 5, 2015
PEGGY A. PENDELL, Plaintiff,
UNKNOWN OTHERS, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JONATHAN E. HAWLEY, Magistrate Judge.
The Plaintiff, Peggy A. Pendell, and her co-Plaintiff Jessica Taylor filed their Complaint (Doc. 1) on August 5, 2013. On August 18, 2014, the Court held a Status Conference noting that Taylor's whereabouts were unknown and ultimately dismissing Taylor without prejudice from the case. On September 25, 2014, a Notice was entered in this case in which it was explained that multiple pleadings sent to Pendell were returned to the Court as Undeliverable Mail. The Notice also explained that Pendell had not filed any Notices of Change of Address in this case, and Pendell was reminded of her continuing obligation to keep the Clerk and each opposing party informed of any change in her location. The Court directed Pendell to file a notice of change of address with the Clerk within 14 days, otherwise the action would be dismissed. Mail sent to Pendell was again returned as undeliverable on September 29, 2014, and the Defendants filed a Notice that same day explaining that the Proposed Discovery Plan sent to Pendell on September 23, 2014 was returned as undeliverable.
On October 1, 2014, Pendell filed a Reiterated Request for Change of Venue (Doc. 28) which was received in an envelope that did not have a return address listed. On October 2, 2014, the Court held a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference at which time the Court informed Pendell that it required an updated address for Pendell. Pendell was given until 5:00 p.m. on October 3, 2014 to submit, in writing, a correct and valid address. Pendell filed a Notice of Change of Address on October 3, 2014. She then filed a Notice of Corrected Change of Address on October 8, 2014.
On April 22, 2015, mail sent to Pendell from the Court was returned as undeliverable. On May 14, 2015, the Court entered a Text Order explaining that the case was previously scheduled for a Status Conference on that date to explore the possibility of the parties participating in Court sponsored mediation, but the Court was unable to reach Pendell at the telephone number provided to the Clerk. The hearing was vacated and the parties were directed to contact the Court if a settlement conference was desired. On May 20, 2015, more mail sent from the Court was returned as undeliverable and the stamp from the United States Postal Service provided "[PO] BOX CLOSED" and no forwarding address was given.
Finally, on May 21, 2015, the Court entered a Text Order to Show Cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In the Text Order, the Court explained that Pendell was repeatedly warned that the failure to inform the Court of any change of address would result in dismissal of this action. The Court noted that, nevertheless, on April 22, 2015 and May 20, 2015, communications from the Court were returned as undeliverable. The Court further noted that Pendell failed to appear for a telephonic status hearing on May 14, 2015. The Court directed Pendell's show cause response to be filed by June 4, 2015, and the failure to file a response would result in a Report and Recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Pendell did not file anything in this case after May 21, 2015. Accordingly, the Court recommends that Pendell's case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a Court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The parties are advised that any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk within fourteen (14) working days after service of this Report and Recommendation. FRCP 72(b)(2); 28 USC § 636(b)(1). Failure to object will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Johnson v Zema Systems Corp, 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir 1999); Lorentzen v Anderson Pest Control, 64 F.3d 327, 330 (7th Cir 1995).