Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Konrath v. Wear

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Beckley Division

February 12, 2018

GREGORY KONRATH, Plaintiff,
v.
BRENT WEAR, et al., Defendants.

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          OMAR J. ABOULHOSN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff, acting pro se and incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility, located in Westville, Indiana, filed his Complaint in this matter claiming entitlement to relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. (Document No. 1.) By Order entered on January 13, 2016, the undersigned ordered that Plaintiff shall have until February 14, 2017 to either pay the Court's filing fee ($350) and administrative fee ($50) totaling $400 or file the Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and other documents as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). (Document No. 3.) The undersigned further notified Plaintiff as follows:

Failure of the Plaintiff to either pay the filing and administrative fee or file an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by February 14, 2017, will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this matter without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the Southern District of West Virginia.

(Id.) Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's Order that was entered more than one year ago.

         Accordingly, the undersigned has determined that Plaintiff has failed to take any steps to prosecute this action, and therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint in this case should be dismissed.[1]

         ANALYSIS

         Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the Southern District of West Virginia, District Courts possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for a pro se Plaintiff's failure to prosecute sua sponte.[2] See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962).

         Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules provides:

Dismissal of Actions. When it appears in any pending civil action that the principal issues have been adjudicated or have become moot, or that the parties have shown no interest in further prosecution, the judicial officer may give notice to all counsel and unrepresented parties that the action will be dismissed 30 days after the date of the notice unless good cause for its retention on the docket is shown. In the absence of good cause shown within that period of time, the judicial officer may dismiss the action. The clerk shall transmit a copy of any order of dismissal to all counsel and unrepresented parties. This rule does not modify or affect provisions for dismissal of actions under FR Civ P 41 or any other authority.

         Although the propriety of a dismissal “depends on the particular circumstances of the case, ” in determining whether to dismiss a case involuntarily for want of prosecution, the District Court should consider the following four factors:

(i) the degree of personal responsibility of the plaintiff;
(ii) the amount of prejudice caused the defendant,
(iii) the existence of a history of deliberately proceeding in a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.