Edelen v. Mazza, No. 4:2020cv00094 - Document 30 (W.D. Ky. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 11/16/2021: Because Edelen has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court by failing to file a response to Mazza's motion for summary judgment, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order.cc:counsel; Plaintiff, pro se (EAS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Edelen v. Mazza Doc. 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20CV-00094-JHM ANDREW L. EDELEN PLAINTIFF VS. KEVIN MAZZA DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on a motion by Defendant Kevin Mazza for summary judgment. [DN 28]. One month after this motion was filed, pro se Plaintiff Andrew L. Edelen had not filed a response. The Court issued an Order giving Edelen an additional 30 days to respond to the pending motion, and the Court warned Plaintiff “failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of the action.” [DN 29]. Edelen has not filed a response to Mazza’s pending motion for summary judgment, and the time to do so has passed. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal of an action if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[T]he lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more generously than a represented litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (cleaned up). Dockets.Justia.com Additionally, courts have an inherent power “acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Because Edelen has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court by failing to file a response to Mazza’s motion for summary judgment, despite being warned that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se counsel of record November 16, 2021 2
]]>
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.
