Mullins v. Ethicon, Inc. et al, No. 2:2014cv26300 - Document 37 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the defendants are dismissed without prejudice; there are no remaining defendants in this case; this case is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the docket; all pending motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 11/20/2020. (cc: counsel of record; plaintiff) (kew) (Modified on 11/20/2020 to remove and replace incorrect image attached) (kew).

Download PDF
Mullins v. Ethicon, Inc. et al Doc. 37 Case 2:14-cv-26300 Document 37 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1278 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION Lois D. Mullins, Plaintiff v. Civil Action Number 2:14-v-26300 Ethicon, Inc., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On October 20, 2020, I entered an order directing plaintiff to show cause on or before November 19, 2020, why her case should not be dismissed as to the remaining defendants, Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. The Order was sent to the plaintiff at her last known address and posted on the court’s website. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Show Cause Order. Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and after weighing the factors identified in Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989), the court finds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute her case. The court ORDERS that the above defendants are dismissed without prejudice. There are no remaining defendants in this case and, therefor, the court further ORDERS that the case is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the court’s active docket. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and plaintiff at her address. ENTER: November 20, 2020 Dockets.Justia.com

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.