MEMORANDUM ORDER

RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge.

At Wilmington this 10 day of February, 2020;

1. On January 16, 2020, the Court entered an order for Plaintiff to show cause, on or before February 4, 2020, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to D. Del. LR 41 .1. (See D.I. 23). Plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order.

2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a court may dismiss an action "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules] or any order of court .. . ." Although dismissal is an extreme sanction that should only be used in limited circumstances, dismissal is appropriate if a party fails to prosecute the action. Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311, 1330 (3d Cir. 1995).

3. The following six factors determine whether dismissal is warranted: (1) The extent of the party's personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of other sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Gas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984); see also Hildebrand v. Allegheny Cty., 923 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2019). The Court must balance the factors and need not find that all of them weigh against Plaintiff to dismiss the action. Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002).

4. Several factors warrant the sanction of dismissal including Plaintiff having taken no action since August 9, 2019, Defendant having filed a motion to dismiss and Plaintiff having failed to file an answering brief as ordered by the Court, and Plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case.

THEREFORE, it is ordered that: