United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
about September 12, 2016, Plaintiff, Shannon Nuccio
(“Plaintiff”), filed a Petition for Damages (the
“Petition”) in state court seeking damages for
injuries sustained when Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell
in a Dollar General Store in Albany, Louisiana. The suit was
removed on December 13, 2016 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. The parties consented to proceed before
the undersigned magistrate judge,  and this suit was thereafter
referred to the undersigned for all further proceedings and
entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
September 16, 2017, counsel for Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Withdraw Representation and Counsel of Record for Plaintiff
Shannon Nuccio (the “Motion to
Withdraw”). Per the Motion to Withdraw, counsel for
Plaintiff attested that he had “tried on numerous
occasions to contact plaintiff Shannon Nuccio to no
avail.” Plaintiff's counsel additionally
asserted that he had sent notice to Plaintiff that counsel
would be filing a Motion to Withdraw via certified mail
return receipt requested, to the address of “44133 Bess
Morris Lane, Hammond, Louisiana 70403” (the “Bess
Morris Address”) and that the “green card”
had been signed indicating Plaintiff's receipt of the
letter. On September 13, 2017, an Order granting
the Motion to Withdraw was entered.
the withdrawal of Plaintiff's counsel, the court
ordered a telephone conference to take place on
October 11, 2017 to discuss the pending Motion for Extension
of Deadlines.The order was sent to Plaintiff by
certified mail return receipt requested to the address listed
on PACER, i.e., the Bess Morris Address, and
Plaintiff was advised that “failure to participate in
[October 11, 2017 conference] may result in dismissal of this
action.” The court received notice of delivery
receipt on October 11, 2017. Despite receiving the Order
via certified mail, return receipt requested, Plaintiff
failed to participate in the telephone conference as ordered.
light of Plaintiff's failure to participate in the
October 11, 2017 telephone conference as ordered, the court
issued an Order to Show Cause. The Order to Show Cause was
ordered to be served on Plaintiff by certified mail return
receipt requested at the Bess Morris Address and a show cause
hearing was set for October 25, 2017. The Order to Show Cause
explicitly stated that “[f]ailure to appear as ordered
may result in dismissal of plaintiff's claims in this
matter without further notice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
41(b).” Plaintiff failed to appear for the show
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b), “[i]f the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or
a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or
any claim against it.” This Court has the authority to
dismiss an action for plaintiff's failure to prosecute
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and under its
inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte.
See Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31,
82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Curtis v.
Quarterman, 340 F. App'x 217, 217-18 (5th Cir. 2009)
(“A district court has the authority to dismiss an
action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with
any court order. The court possesses the inherent authority
to dismiss the action sua sponte in the absence of a
motion by the defendant.”); McCullough v.
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (finding
that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an
action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court
order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)). Such a
sanction is necessary in order to prevent delay and avoid
congestion in the calendars of the court. See Link,
370 U.S. at 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386.
This matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil
IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is to provide
this Order of Dismissal to Plaintiff via certified mail,
return receipt requested to the address listed on PACER.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that reinstatement of this action
within thirty days shall be permitted upon a showing of good
cause by the Plaintiff.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Compel
Response to Discovery and the Motion for Extension of
Deadlines are DENIED AS MOOT.
 R. Doc. 1-1.