United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TYLER D. CRIPE, Plaintiff,
BRIAN GLIDDEN, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Tyler Cripe, acting pro se, filed the present
lawsuit alleging violations of his constitutional rights
during his detention at Fayette County Jail. This matter is
before the Court on an oral Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Prosecution (Doc. 24). As discussed below, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that the district judge DISMISS Plaintiff's
suit with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
filed his Complaint in this action on July 17, 2017. (Doc.
1). At that time, Plaintiff was being held at the Fayette
County Jail. (Id.). Beginning on February 13, 2018,
the Court received notice that documents being sent by the
Court to Plaintiff were being returned as undeliverable.
(See Docs. 19, 21, and 25). On February 16, 2018,
the Court set this matter for a telephone status conference
to take place on March 9, 2018. (Doc. 20). The notice of
hearing contained the following language:
“PLAINTIFF'S APPEARANCE IS MANDATORY. FAILURE TO
APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL AND/OR SANCTIONS.”
(Id.). On March 7, 2018, the Court sent notice of
new call-in information regarding the status conference.
(Doc. 22). Plaintiff failed to appear for the March 9th
conference. (Doc. 23). At that conference, defense counsel
indicated that he sent written discovery to Plaintiff that
had come back as undeliverable. Counsel also stated that he
had yet to receive Plaintiff's initial disclosures. On
March 13, 2018, the notice of hearing for the March 9th
status conference was returned to the Court as undeliverable.
notice of change of address has been filed by Plaintiff. In
his merits review order, Judge Gilbert informed Plaintiff
that he was under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk
of Court and opposing parties notified of any change of
address, and that such notification should take place within
seven (7) days after an address change. (Doc. 11, p. 10).
Plaintiff was also informed that failure to notify of an
address change could result in dismissal for want of
Rule 41(b), a court may dismiss an action with prejudice
“if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with
[the Federal Rules] or a court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
41(b). A district court should dismiss a suit under Rule
41(b) “when there is a clear record of delay or
contumacious conduct, or when other less drastic sanctions
have proven unavailing.” Salata v. Weyerhauser
Co., 757 F.3d 695, 699 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Webber v. Eye Corp., 721 F.2d 1067, 1069 (7th Cir.
1983)) (internal quotations omitted). In addition, district
courts have an inherent power to dismiss suits due to a
plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash
Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8L.Ed.2d
734 (1962). This power is necessary in order to prevent
unnecessary delays in disposing of pending cases and to avoid
clogging the district courts' calendars. Id. at
629 - 30.
has shown no interest in prosecuting his suit. It is clear
that Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of
address as required by the Court's merits review order,
thus resulting in his failure to appear for the status
conference. Though Plaintiff may not have received the
Court's notice of the hearing (due to his own neglect),
the notice for the conference was viewable to the public, and
it warned Plaintiff of the consequences for failing to
appear. Importantly, the threshold order also specifically
indicated that failure to notify the Court of a change of
address could result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Therefore, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff had adequate
warning of the consequences of failing to notify the Court of
a new address and of failing to appear at the hearing.
See Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752, 760 (7th
Cir. 1993) (holding “there must be an explicit warning
before the case is dismissed” for failure to
prosecute). As such, the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Prosecute should be granted..
reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to diligently
prosecute his suit. For these reasons, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that the district judge
GRANT the oral Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24)
and DISMISS all claims in this matter
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.1(b), the
parties may object to any or all of the proposed dispositive
findings in this Recommendation. The failure to file a timely
objection may result in the waiver of the right to challenge
this Recommendation before either the District Court or the
Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Snyder v. Nolen, 380
F.3d 279, 284 (7th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Objections to
this Report and Recommendation must be filed on or before
April 2, 2018.