Green v. Capital One
Filing
34
ORDER adopting in part 32 Report and Recommendations, modifying it to dismiss the case WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute and respond to court orders. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 2/1/12 (alt)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
DONNIE GREEN,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
CAPITAL ONE,
Case No. 2:11-CV-311-TC
Defendant.
On December 7, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge David Nuffer issued an Order To
Show Cause1 (OSC) why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff
Donnie Green failed to appear at the Initial Pretrial Conference (which was properly noticed and
scheduled), and failed to participate in the schedule planning process as required by the notices of
Initial Pretrial Conference. Mr. Green did not respond to the OSC.
Judge Nuffer then issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the case without
prejudice.2 Mr. Green did not object to the Report and Recommendation (R&R). Defendant
Capital One did, however, object to a portion of the R&R. Specifically, Capital One contends
that because the OSC said dismissal would be with prejudice, the R&R incorrectly recommended
that the case be dismissed without prejudice.3 Capital One points out the numerous times that
1
Docket No. 27.
2
Docket No. 32.
3
See Docket No. 33.
Mr. Green has failed to respond to the court or to counsel for Capital One, and it contends that
Mr. Green has essentially abandoned his case.
Based on the docket and representations from counsel for Capital One, the court hereby
adopts the R&R in part, modifying it to dismiss the case WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s
failure to prosecute and respond to court orders. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the
case.
SO ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
TENA CAMPBELL
U.S. District Court Judge
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
