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.

Robinson v. Samijlenko

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

July 30, 2018

ERIC ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL SAMIJLENKO, et al., Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Jonathan D. Greenberg U.S. Magistrate Judge.

         This case is before the Court upon consent of the parties, entered March 20, 2018. (Doc. No. 13.) Pending before the Court is Defendants' unopposed Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 21.) For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

         I. Procedural/Factual Background

         On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff Eric Robinson, proceeding pro se, filed the instant matter alleging Defendant Michael Samijlenko, a police officer within the Parma Police Department, [1]assaulted Robinson during the course of an arrest. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) Within his pro se Complaint form, Plaintiff agreed “to provide the Clerk's office with any changes to [his] address where case-related papers may be served, ” with the understanding “failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of [his] case.” (Id. at 11.)

         On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Evidence” and a “Motion to Set Pretrial Scheduling Order.” (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.) The Court denied these motions as premature. At that time, the Court reminded Plaintiff he was “charged with familiarizing [himself] with, and following, the Federal Civil and Local Rules.” (Doc. No. 11 at 3.) The Court warned Plaintiff it was within its discretion to “impose sanctions on Plaintiff, which could include the dismissal of this matter.” (Id.)

         On April 2, 2018, the Court issued an Order setting a telephonic Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for May 3, 2018. (Doc. No. 14.) Within this Order, the parties were directed to conduct a parties' planning meeting, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and LR 16.3(b)(3), prior to the CMC. (Id. at 4.) During the May 3, 2018 CMC, the parties admitted they had yet to conduct a parties' planning meeting. (Doc. No. 16.) The Court directed the parties to conduct this meeting and file their initial disclosures by May 17, 2018. (Id.)

         Defendants filed a Report of Parties' Planning Meeting on May 3, 2018. (Doc. No. 19.) On May 10, 2018, Defendants filed their initial disclosures. (Doc. No. 20.) To date, Plaintiff has yet to submit his initial disclosures, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (a)(1).

         On May 23, 2018, Defendants filed the underlying Motion to Dismiss, requesting this matter be dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 21 at 1.) Plaintiff has not filed a response.[2]

         On June 4, 2018, the minutes of the May 3, 2018 CMC[3] were returned to the Court as “not deliverable as addressed” and “unable to forward.” (Doc. No. 22.)

         On June 29, 2018, this Court issued a Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 23.) Within this Order, the Court reviewed the above procedural history and noted

At this juncture, Plaintiff has not contacted the Court to explain why he has not submitted his initial disclosures or provided the Clerk's office with a new address. He has not responded to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; his response was due June 22, 2018. Because Plaintiff has failed to actively pursue this litigation, the Court again reminds Plaintiff his failure to comply with its Orders could result in sanctions, including the dismissal of this matter entirely.

(Id. at 3.)(emphasis added.) The Order directed Plaintiff to show cause “on or before July 9, 2018 why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f). Plaintiff is also directed to provide the Clerk's Office with an updated address. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this matter.” (Id. at 3.)(emphasis in original.) On July 16, 2018, this Order was returned as “not deliverable as addressed” and “unable to forward.” (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff has not updated his address or otherwise responded to this Order.

         II. Law and Analysis

         Defendants request this matter be “dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 41(b) for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and for failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office.” (Doc. No. 21 at 1.) Defendants contend Plaintiff has not submitted his initial disclosures and indicate their initial disclosures were returned as undelivered, as Plaintiff had not provided an updated address following his release from the Cuyahoga County Jail. (Id. at 1, 2.) Defendants argue they can “only continue to serve Plaintiff at the County Jail with all court related papers . . .[as this] is the only ...


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.