Filed: Feb. 26, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2020
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE GREGORY B. WORMUTH , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon review of the record. Plaintiff filed this action pro se on June 28, 2019. Doc. 1. The Court issued an Order Setting Briefing Schedule, which directed Plaintiff to file a Motion to Reverse or Remand on or before December 16, 2019. Doc. 22. The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of the time to file the Motion to Reverse or Remand until December 31, 2019. Doc. 24
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE GREGORY B. WORMUTH , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon review of the record. Plaintiff filed this action pro se on June 28, 2019. Doc. 1. The Court issued an Order Setting Briefing Schedule, which directed Plaintiff to file a Motion to Reverse or Remand on or before December 16, 2019. Doc. 22. The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of the time to file the Motion to Reverse or Remand until December 31, 2019. Doc. 24...
More
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
GREGORY B. WORMUTH, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon review of the record. Plaintiff filed this action pro se on June 28, 2019. Doc. 1. The Court issued an Order Setting Briefing Schedule, which directed Plaintiff to file a Motion to Reverse or Remand on or before December 16, 2019. Doc. 22. The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of the time to file the Motion to Reverse or Remand until December 31, 2019. Doc. 24. More than forty-five days have passed in which Plaintiff has not filed a motion or otherwise taken steps to prosecute her case.
On February 7, 2020, the Court filed an Order to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff to respond in writing by February 21, 2020 as to why this case should not be dismissed. Doc. 25. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond. As explained in the Order to Show Cause, the Court has the inherent power to issue sanctions in order to regulate its docket and promote judicial efficiency, including the sanction of dismissing an action for want of prosecution. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); United States ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 856 (10th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff was further warned that failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause would constitute an independent basis for dismissal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
