Ross v. JH Industry, Inc. (CONSENT), No. 3:2017cv00394 - Document 29 (M.D. Ala. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this case be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice for the plf's abandonment of her claims, her failure to comply with the orders of this court and her failure to prosecute thi s action. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/30/2017. (alm, ) (Main Document 29 replaced on 11/30/2017) (alm, ). Modified on 11/30/2017 to attach a corrected PDF to correct a clerical error to reflect the correct case style. (alm, ).
Download PDF
Ross v. JH Industry, Inc. (CONSENT) Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION SHARDAE ROSS, Plaintiff, v. JH INDUSTRY, INC. d/b/a WOOSHIN USA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:17cv394-CSC (WO) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER In this case, plaintiff Shardae Ross complains that she has been discriminated against by the defendants based on her sex. The plaintiff was represented by counsel when she filed this action on June 19, 2017. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and M.D. Ala. LR 73.1, the parties consented to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in this case and ordering the entry of final judgment. On October 3, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw due to lack of communication from the plaintiff. (Doc. # 25). On October 4, 2017, the court granted the motion to withdraw and entered an order directing the plaintiff to have new counsel file a notice of appearance no later than November 1, 2017. See Doc. # 26. Counsel has not filed a notice of appearance, and the court’s October 4, 2017 order which was sent to the plaintiff at her last known address was returned to the court as undeliverable. On November 13, 2017, the court entered an order requiring the plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for abandonment of her claims, failure to prosecute this action and failure to Dockets.Justia.com comply with the orders of the court. (Doc. # 28). The court specifically cautioned the plaintiff that failure to file a response in compliance with the directives of this order would result in the court recommending that this case be dismissed. Id. The plaintiff has failed to file a response to the order entered on November 13, 2017. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s abandonment of her claims, her failure to comply with the orders of this court and her failure to prosecute this cause of action warrant dismissal of this case. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this case be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice for the plaintiff's abandonment of her claims, her failure to comply with the orders of this court and her failure to prosecute this action. A separate final judgment will issue Done this 30th day of November, 2017. /s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2