REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

REONA J. DALY, Magistrate Judge.

This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly by United States District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs' failure to appear at a scheduled hearing and failure to respond to the Court's Show Cause Order. For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that the District Court ADOPT the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and DISMISS this action with prejudice.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiffs A.D., individually and as a mother and next friend of K.D., a minor, and K.D., a minor, filed this complaint, through counsel, on February 1, 2018 alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois state and statutory law. On August 17, 2018, counsel for Plaintiffs, Daniel Seidman, filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and communication therein (Doc. 48). The Court held a hearing on counsel's motion to withdraw on September 13, 2018 (see Doc. 50). Counsel for Plaintiffs appeared (as did counsel for Defendants). Plaintiffs, however, failed to appear. The Court issued an order granting counsel's motion to withdraw and advising Plaintiff A.D. that she must either (1) file a notice of her intent to proceed pro se in this matter; or (2) have new counsel file their notice of appearance by October 4, 2018. The Court also advised that because Plaintiff K.D. is a minor she must retain new counsel by October 4, 2018 to continue as a party in this case.

The Court also entered an order directing Plaintiff A.D. to show cause as to why she failed to appear for the September 13, 2018 motion hearing (Doc. 52). Plaintiff was advised that her response was due by October 4, 2018, and that a failure to respond to the show cause order may result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this lawsuit.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides for involuntary dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute an action or to comply with court orders. Pursuant to Rule 41(b), an action may be dismissed "when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, or when other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailing." Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462, 467 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Williams v. Chicago Bd. Of Educ., 155 F.3d 853, 857 (7th Cir. 1998) (other citations omitted). Although there is no requirement of graduated sanctions prior to dismissal, the Court must provide an explicit warning before a case is dismissed. Aura Lamp & Lighting Inc. v. International Trading Corp., 325 F.3d 903, 908 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 1993)). Dismissal is the most severe sanction that a court may apply; as such, its use must be tempered by a careful exercise of judicial discretion. Webber v. Eye Corp., 721 F.2d 1067, 1069 (7th Cir. 1983).

The Seventh Circuit has identified several factors a court should consider before entering an involuntary dismissal, including:

The District Court has authority to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute, sua sponte, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). James v. McDonald's Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) ("The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice because of failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.").

Based on a review of the record and upon consideration of the applicable law, it is recommended that this action should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b). First, Plaintiffs have exhibited disregard for court orders. In particular, Plaintiff A.D. failed to appear at the in-person motion hearing set for September 13, 2018, despite the Court's admonition that her appearance was mandatory (see Doc. 49). Further, Plaintiff A.D. failed to comply with the Court's order directing her to either: (1) file a notice of her intent to proceed pro se; or (2) have new counsel file their notice of appearance on her behalf by October 4, 2018. Similarly, Plaintiff K.D. failed to comply with the Court's order to obtain new counsel by October 4, 2018 (see Doc. 51). Moreover, Plaintiff A.D. failed to comply with the Court's show cause order directing her to provide an explanation for her failure to attend the September 13, 2018 motion hearing, despite being warned that a failure to respond to the Order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this lawsuit.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that allowing this matter to proceed when Plaintiffs have clearly lost interest in litigating this case would result in unfair prejudice to Defendants and waste Court resources. Thus, for the above-mentioned reasons, and after consideration of the relevant factors cited by the Seventh Circuit regarding involuntary dismissal, the Court finds that there has been a clear record of delay and contumacious conduct by Plaintiffs and dismissal is warranted pursuant to Rule 41(b).

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b), and that the Court adopt the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objection thereto. The failure to file a timely objection may result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Report and Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 284 (7th Cir. 2004).