Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ESTES v. WILSON, 3:12cv459/RS/EMT. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. Florida Number: infdco20140611c54 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 12, 2014
Latest Update: May 12, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY, Magistrate Judge. This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. On January 16, 2014, the court directed Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days (doc. 89). Plaintiff failed to respond to the order; therefore, on February 25, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a notice declaring his continued interest in this case, or, alternatively, a motion to volunta
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY, Magistrate Judge.

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. On January 16, 2014, the court directed Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days (doc. 89). Plaintiff failed to respond to the order; therefore, on February 25, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a notice declaring his continued interest in this case, or, alternatively, a motion to voluntarily dismiss (doc. 90). The order advised Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action (id.). Plaintiff failed to file a response or otherwise communicate with the court; therefore, on April 4, 2014, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty (30) days, why the case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the order issued February 25, 2014 (see doc. 91). The order again advised Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the show cause order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action (id.). The deadline for Plaintiff's response to the order to show cause has elapsed, with no communication from Plaintiff. Further, neither of the court's two orders pertaining to Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment has been returned as undeliverable, so the court must conclude that Plaintiff has received the orders but has willfully decided not to comply with the court's instructions. Therefore, dismissal of this action without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply is warranted.1

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court.

FootNotes


1. The court notes that if Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, on the ground that it is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d (1994), the case would be dismissed without prejudice so long as it is possible that Plaintiff could still file a timely habeas petition challenging his conviction.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer