Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

FUGATE v. CHESTER BROSS CONSTRUCTION CO., 2:15-cv-04014-SRB. (2015)

Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri Number: infdco20151202c89 Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2015
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN R. BOUGH , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Marcus Wayne Fugate's pro se motion construed as a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. #27). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's motion is denied. On May 12, 2015, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint alleging sufficient facts to support his claim for discrimination. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Court's Order would result i
More

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Marcus Wayne Fugate's pro se motion construed as a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. #27). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's motion is denied.

On May 12, 2015, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint alleging sufficient facts to support his claim for discrimination. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Court's Order would result in a dismissal of his action. Plaintiff failed to amend his complaint within thirty days as instructed by the Court. On June 23, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint as ordered by the Court. Plaintiff was cautioned that, "[f]ailure to comply with the Court's Order will result in a dismissal of this action." (Doc. #21). The Court supplied Plaintiff with a hard copy of each order at the address provided to the Court by Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to respond and this action was dismissed on July 8, 2015, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's May 12, 2015, Order.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's letter requesting the Court reconsider its dismissal of this action and reopen the case. On November 16, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide the Court with proof that he timely submitted his Amended Complaint pursuant to the Court's orders. Plaintiff's response was due by November 23, 2015. To date, the Court has not received any response or documentation from Plaintiff that he submitted his Amended Complaint"[o]n or about the beginning of June or end of May 2015." (Doc. #27).

Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff's letter (Doc. #25) to the Court can be construed as a request for reconsideration, said motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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