Dolo v. Washington County Detention Center et al, No. 2:2018cv00209 - Document 19 (E.D. Tenn. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION to be set forth more fully in the following order. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on August 5, 2019. (copy mailed to Alfred Dolo, WESTERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL, 5885 West River Road, Salem, VA 24153) (AYB)

Download PDF
Dolo v. Washington County Detention Center et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE ALFRED DOLO, Plaintiff, v. BRETT BUTLER and JAMES HARDIN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 2:18-CV-209-TAV-MCLC MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 21, 2019, the Court entered an order providing that Plaintiff would have fifteen days from the date of entry of the order to show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute [Doc. 18]. The Court also warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with that order, the Court would dismiss this action [Id. at 1]. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with this order or otherwise communicated with the Court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) gives this Court the authority to dismiss a case for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” See, e.g., Nye Capital Appreciation Partners, L.L.C. v. Nemchik, 483 F. App’x 1, 9 (6th Cir. 2012); Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362–63 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court examines four factors when considering dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b): (1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) Dockets.Justia.com whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered. Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005); see Reg’l Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150, 155 (6th Cir. 1988). As to the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to or comply with the Court’s previous order is due to Plaintiff’s willfulness and/or fault. Specifically, it appears that Plaintiff received the Court’s order and did not comply therewith. As such, the first factor weighs in favor of dismissal. As to the second factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order has not prejudiced Defendants. As to the third factor, the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court would dismiss this case if he failed to comply with the Court’s order [Doc. 18 p. 1]. Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be effective. Plaintiff was a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis [Doc. 4] in this matter and he has not pursued this case since filing his complaint more than six months ago. For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER. s/ Thomas A. Varlan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.