Filed: Dec. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 27, 2019
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KAYMANI D. WEST , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's pro se Complaint against Cowabunga, Inc. & Domino's Pizza (collectively, "Defendants") initially was filed in the Horry County, South Carolina Court of Common Pleas and was removed to this court on September 26, 2019. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the undersigned for consideration of Defendants' two dispositive motions: Motion to Dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12, ECF No. 7; and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Pro
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KAYMANI D. WEST , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's pro se Complaint against Cowabunga, Inc. & Domino's Pizza (collectively, "Defendants") initially was filed in the Horry County, South Carolina Court of Common Pleas and was removed to this court on September 26, 2019. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the undersigned for consideration of Defendants' two dispositive motions: Motion to Dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12, ECF No. 7; and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Pros..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff's pro se Complaint against Cowabunga, Inc. & Domino's Pizza (collectively, "Defendants") initially was filed in the Horry County, South Carolina Court of Common Pleas and was removed to this court on September 26, 2019. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the undersigned for consideration of Defendants' two dispositive motions: Motion to Dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12, ECF No. 7; and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, ECF No. 17.1
On September 27, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (4), and (5). ECF No. 7. On September 30, 2019, the undersigned issued orders advising Plaintiff of the need to communicate with the court and abide by court orders. ECF No. 10. Additionally, in connection with Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the court issued an order advising Plaintiff of the need to respond to such a dispositive motion and the possible consequences of failing to respond. ECF No. 11. See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff was advised that if he did not submit a written response to the Motion to Dismiss within 31 days (plus three mailing days), the motion to dismiss may be granted and the case could be ended. ECF No. 11. That deadline (October 31, 2019, plus three mailing days) has passed, and Plaintiff has filed no response to the Motion to Dismiss, nor has he otherwise been in contact with the court.
On November 13, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. ECF No. 17. Citing to the court's September 30, 2019 order and noting Plaintiff's failure to respond in any manner, Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court again issued an order advising Plaintiff of the need to submit a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, advising that failure to respond could result in dismissal of the case. ECF No. 18. The deadline for responding to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute has passed with no response from Plaintiff.
Based on Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendants' two pending Motions to Dismiss or to otherwise communicate with the court regarding this matter, it appears Plaintiff is no longer interested in pursuing his claim. Accordingly, it is recommended that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 7 and 17, be granted, and this matter be ended. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
