OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

JUDITH E. LEVY, District Judge.

Plaintiff originally filed this case on November 17, 2017. (Dkt. 1.) After more than a year of litigation, counsel for plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw. (Dkt. 24.) Counsel stated that plaintiff had become "nonresponsive . . . and there [had] been a breakdown in attorney and client relationship." (Id. at 2.) The Court held a status conference, defendants did not oppose the motion, and the motion was granted. (Dkt. 30.) The Court stayed the case for thirty days to permit plaintiff to retain new representation or, in the alternative, to notify the Court that she intended to prosecute the case without a lawyer. (Id.)

Thirty days came and went, but no new counsel for plaintiff made an appearance and plaintiff did not indicate whether she intended to proceed pro se. As a result, on April 23, 2019, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing by May 7, 2019, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. 31.) Plaintiff did not respond by May 7, and, even as of today, she has not responded. Thus, plaintiff has not shown cause why this case should not be dismissed. She has shown no intention to continue to prosecute this lawsuit.

Dismissal for failure to prosecute is available to the district court "as a tool to effect management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts [and] opposing parties." Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999). "A district court must be given substantial discretion in serving these tasks." Id. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.