Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Graham v. Grand Celebration Cruises, L.L.C.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

April 18, 2019

Chester C. Graham, Plaintiff,
v.
Grand Celebration Cruises, L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company, Defendant.

          Chester C. Graham, 408 Spring Street North, Apt. #210, Northfield, MN 55057, pro se Plaintiff.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

          BECKY R. THORSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before this Court for a Report and Recommendation on whether this case should be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and D. Minn. LR 72.1. For the reasons stated below, this Court recommends that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution.

         BACKGROUND

         On April 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Grand Celebration Cruises, L.L.C. (Doc. No. 1.) A Summons was issued as to Defendant on August 28, 2018, and again on October 15, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 6, 9.) After several attempts on service, the Summons was returned executed on February 1, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11.) Nothing happened in this case between February 1 and 27, 2019. On February 27, 2019, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to:

1. Notify Defendant immediately that it is required to make an appearance or move for an extension of time to do so;
2. File an application for entry of default against Defendant unless the required pleading is filed within 10 days;
3. Advise the Court in writing of any good cause to the contrary.

(Doc. No. 13.) This Court also stated that “[u]nless Plaintiff complies with this Order within 20 days of this date, the Defendant will be dismissed for lack of prosecution.” (Id.)

         On March 12, 2019, thirteen days after this Court's Order, Plaintiff filed letters in this case (dated March 4, 2019), which seemed to indicate that he notified Defendant pursuant to the Court's Order. (See Doc. Nos. 14, 15.) However, as of the date of this Report and Recommendation, Defendant has not filed an appearance in this case and Plaintiff has not filed an application for entry of default within twenty days as was instructed in the Court's February 27, 2019 Order.

         DISCUSSION

         The facts and circumstances of each case should be evaluated to determine if dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted. Navarro v. Chief of Police, Des Moines, Iowa, 523 F.2d 214, 217 (8th Cir. 1975). This Court concludes that, based on the sequence of events in this case and Plaintiff's lack of compliance with this Court's February 27, 2019 Order, Plaintiff's case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) states:

If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule-except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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