CUMMINGS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al, No. 1:2013cv00952 - Document 51 (S.D. Ind. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 41(E): IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the above-captioned matter is hereby dismissed, with prejudice. The Court notes that Defendant Dr. Danawitz was previously dismissed by agreement. [Filing No. 38.] Final judgment shall now issue ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMTION***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/12/2014. Copy sent via US Mail. (DW)

Download PDF
CUMMINGS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al Doc. 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION GUY CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, vs. CORIZON, INC., RICHARD TANNER M.D., DANAWITZ Dr., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:13-cv-00952-JMS-TAB ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 41(E) Defendants, Corizon, Inc. and Dr. Richard Tanner, M.D., by counsel, have filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(E). Mr. Cummings has not responded to the motion, and a similar lack of communication has previously prompted the withdrawal of Mr. Cummings’ prior counsel. [Filing No. 45; Filing No. 46.] Mr. Cummings also failed to appear for a duly noticed deposition. [Filing No. 48-2.] Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41(b)1 the Court finds dismissal to be the appropriate course of action due to Mr. Cummings’ failure to prosecute this action. The Court concludes he has abandoned this action and finds the sanction of dismissal would be appropriate in this case if not for the entry of summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), (c)(1)(C); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of 1 Defendants incorrectly cite to Rule 41(E), the Indiana counterpart. Dockets.Justia.com cases”); see also GCIU Employer Retirement Fund v. Chicago Tribune Co., 8 F.3d 1195, 11981199 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] party cannot decide for itself when it feels like pressing its action and when it feels like taking a break because trial judges have a responsibility to litigants to keep their court calendars as current as humanly possible”) (quotation omitted). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the above-captioned matter is hereby dismissed, with prejudice. The Court notes that Defendant Dr. Danawitz was previously dismissed by agreement. [Filing No. 38.] Final judgment shall now issue. ALL OF WHICH IS ORDERED 08/12/2014 Distribution via ECF to: Jeb Adam Crandall BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL PC jeb@bleekedilloncrandall.com Rachel A. East BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL, PC rachel@bleekedilloncrandall.com Madhavi L. Menon OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL madhavi.menon@atg.in.gov Copy by U.S. Mail to: Guy Cummings 132 Albany Street Indianapolis, IN 46225 Guy Cummings 6445 Herath Lane Martinsville, IN 46151 _______________________________ Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.