Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ruach v. Paul

United States District Court, Eighth Circuit

August 29, 2013

POUCH RUACH, Plaintiff,
v.
SHAFFER PAUL, ARIC HANSEN, J.D. COOLIDGE, HEATHER PICKETT, HEATHER STARRY, REINHART ROGER, KATOR DAVID, ANDERSON KRISTIN, TRAVIS LINDSTORM, BRAIN MCDONOUGH, ANNE HERST, NATHAN BOWEDDER, CHRIS HANSEN, LISA K. NEYSSEN JAMI, and PIXOMATIS, Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JANIE S. MAYERON, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is presently before the Court for the purpose of determining whether plaintiff has complied with the requirements of the Court's last previous order dated July 24, 2013. (Docket No. 9.) That order required plaintiff to submit a completed U.S. Marshal Service Form, (USM-285), for each named defendant in this case, in order to facilitate service of process on defendants. The order expressly informed plaintiff that if he did not file the required marshal service forms within 30 days, i.e., by August 23, 2013, he would be deemed to have abandoned this action, and it would be recommended that the action be summarily dismissed for lack of prosecution.

The deadline for complying with the Court's last order has now expired, and plaintiff has not yet submitted the required marshal service forms. The record shows that the Clerk of Court mailed blank marshal service forms to plaintiff at his last known address, but he has failed to complete and return the forms. Plaintiff has not offered any excuse or explanation for his failure to submit the required forms, and, in fact, he has not communicated with the Court at all for more than two months.[1]

Therefore, based on the express warning regarding the consequences that would follow if plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's last order, it is now recommended that plaintiff be deemed to have abandoned this action, and that the action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (actions may be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders); see also Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel , 267 Fed.Appx. 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (unpublished opinion) ("[a] district court has discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order"); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing that a federal court has the inherent authority to "manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases").

Based upon the above, and upon all the records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.