COOPER
v.
MAGYAR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the action must be dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint after being given the opportunity.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated an employment discrimination action. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal with leave to amend, which…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Obey Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
and U-HAUL MARKETING COMPANY OF TAMPA BAY,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon periodic review. Because Plaintiff has failed to timely file an Amended Complaint, despite being given the opportunity to do so, this action is due to be dismissed, without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
A district court may dismiss a plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 41(b) or the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F. 3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). Under Rule 41(b), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss this action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case or obey a court order under Rule 41(b). Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F. 3d at 1337. Plaintiff, Cortland Cooper, proceeding pro se, initiated this action in April 2022 by filing a complaint against his former employer, U-Haul Marketing Company of Tampa Bay, its president Robert Magyar, and its manager Todd Rarick, alleging
employment discrimination. Doc. 1. In conjunction with his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. On May 23, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and sets forth the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. Doc. 5.
The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff he had fourteen days in which to file an objection to the report and recommendation. Id. at 7. Plaintiff did not file any objection. On June 14, 2022, the Court entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
report and recommendation and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint. Doc. 6. The Court gave Plaintiff twenty days in which to file an amended complaint. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to file an amended complaint within the time frame indicated will result in this matter being dismissed without further notice from the Court.” Id. at 2. The amended complaint was due to be filed on or before July 5, 2022. To date,
Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor sought an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all motions and deadlines and CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 18, 2022.
oe © WJ GAd_a Mn Ts pl wel Q Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Cortland Cooper, pro se Counsel of Record