United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
SKYLA P. TAYLOR PLAINTIFF
AAA AMBULANCE SERVICE DEFENDANT
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S  REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation  of United States Magistrate Judge John C.
Gargiulo, entered in this case on December 18, 2018. Based
upon the Magistrate Judge's review of the record and
relevant legal authority, he recommended that this case be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and
to abide by the Court's Orders. R. & R.  at 3.
The Court finds that the Report and Recommendation 
should adopted in its entirety as the finding of this Court
and that this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
Skyla P. Taylor (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint
 in this Court on March 27, 2018, through retained
counsel. The Complaint asserted claims against her former
employer, AAA Ambulance Service, for retaliation pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §
1981. Compl.  at 1; Order  at 1.
26, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion  for
Leave to Withdraw, citing a conflict of interest. The
Magistrate Judge entered an Order  taking the Motion 
under advisement and directed counsel to serve Plaintiff with
a copy of the Order. The Magistrate Judge also granted
Plaintiff until September 7, 2018, to either “(1)
employ private counsel and have that counsel enter a written
notice of appearance in this case, or (2) notify the Clerk of
Court, in writing, that she will be representing herself in
this case.” Order  at 1. The Magistrate Judge
cautioned that “[s]hould Plaintiff fail to either
retain new counsel or notify the Clerk of Court that she will
be representing herself in this case, the claims will be
subject to dismissal.” Id. After counsel filed
a Certificate of Service  indicating that he had served
Plaintiff as directed, the Magistrate Judge granted
counsel's Motion  for Leave to Withdraw. See
Aug. 8, 2018, Text Order.
September 6, 2018, prospective counsel contacted the
Magistrate Judge's chambers via e-mail and indicated that
he needed additional time to evaluate the case before
deciding whether to represent Plaintiff. See Sept.
6, 2018, Text Order. The Magistrate Judge extended the time
for retaining new counsel or otherwise notifying the Court
until October 10, 2018. See id.
Plaintiff did neither by this deadline, the Magistrate Judge
entered his first Order  to Show Cause on October 16,
2018, and required Plaintiff to show cause in writing by
November 6, 2018, why the case should not be dismissed for
failure to comply with the Court's Orders. Order  at
2. The Magistrate Judge warned that
“[s]hould plaintiff fail to
timely respond or fail to show good cause for her lack of
compliance in this case, this matter may be dismissed without
further notice to Plaintiff.” Id.
filed nothing by the November 6, 2018, deadline, and the
Magistrate Judge entered a Second Order  to Show Cause,
requiring a response by December 6, 2018. Plaintiff was again
cautioned that her case may be dismissed without further
notice if she failed to respond or show cause. See
Order  at 2.
the deadline to respond to the Second Order  to Show
Cause passed with no response from Plaintiff, the Magistrate
Judge entered a Report and Recommendation  on December
18, 2018, recommending that Plaintiff's case be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) and the Court's inherent authority, due to
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and obey Orders of the
Court. See R. & R.  at 3.
objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation  was due within fourteen (14) days of
service. L.U. Civ. R. 72(a)(3). To date, Plaintiff has not
filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
no party has objected to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review
of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“a judge of the
court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations
to which objection is made”). In such cases, the Court
applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and
contrary to law” standard of review. United States
v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
conducted the required review, the Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judge's findings are not clearly erroneous,
nor are they an abuse of discretion or contrary to law. The
Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation  as the opinion of this Court, and this
civil action will be dismissed without prejudice for
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and to abide by the
under a de novo review, the result would not change. This
Court has the authority to dismiss an action for a
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 (1962); McCullough v
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court
must be able to clear its calendar of cases that remain
dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the
parties seeking relief, so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases. Such a sanction ...