LARKIN v. AROOSTOOK COUNTY JAIL et al, No. 1:2021cv00373 - Document 7 (D. Me. 2022)

Court Description: REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint filed by SETH LARKIN; 6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Objections to R&R due by 3/18/2022. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)

Download PDF
LARKIN v. AROOSTOOK COUNTY JAIL et al Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE SETH LARKIN, Plaintiff, v. AROOSTOOK COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:21-cv-00373-NT RECOMMENDED DECISION ON SHOW CAUSE ORDER On January 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which application the Court granted on January 6, 2022. (Application, ECF No. 4; Order, ECF No. 5.) In the order, the Court directed Plaintiff to notify the Court no later than January 27, 2022, of his intent to proceed with this action and to acknowledge in his notice that he understands his obligation to pay the complete filing fee as the requisite funds become available to him. Through the order, the Court informed Plaintiff that a failure to comply with the order could result in the dismissal of the complaint. Because Plaintiff failed to file a notice of intent, on February 7, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. (Order, ECF No. 6.) In the Show Cause Order, the Court established February 22, 2022, as the date by which Plaintiff must show cause in writing as to why he failed to comply with the Court’s order requiring that he notify the Court of his intent to proceed with this action. The Court again advised Plaintiff that if he failed to show cause, his complaint could be dismissed. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Show Cause Order and has not otherwise communicated with the Court. Given Plaintiff’s Dockets.Justia.com failure to show cause, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter. DISCUSSION “A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte for any of the reasons prescribed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” CintronLorenzo v. Dep’t de Asumtos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 526 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 – 31 (1962)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the Court to dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Here, Plaintiff has (a) failed to comply with the Court’s January 6, 2022, Order that required Plaintiff to notify the Court of Plaintiff’s intent to proceed, and (b) failed to file a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff thus has not only failed to comply with two of the Court’s orders, but insofar as he has not notified the Court of his intent to proceed, Plaintiff has also failed to prosecute his claim. Dismissal, therefore, is warranted. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. NOTICE A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof. 2 Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order. /s/ John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge Dated this 4th day of March, 2022. 3

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.