Reeners v. McCormick

United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division · May 29, 2025 · No. 3:24-cv-555

Summary

This Report and Recommendation from a United States Magistrate Judge addresses a defendant's motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's failure to respond to both the motion and a subsequent show cause order. Applying the four-factor test for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the undersigned finds that the plaintiff's prolonged inactivity and noncompliance warrant dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Consequently, the magistrate judge recommends dismissing the action and finding the pending motion to dismiss moot.

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division
Writing for the Court
Jeffery S. Frensley
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Decision date
May 29, 2025
Docket number
3:24-cv-555
Procedural posture
Motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute; report and recommendation recommending dismissal without prejudice
Precedential value
unpublished
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

motions to dismisscivil proceduresection 1983

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) is appropriate.
  2. Whether the district court lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction under the Rooker‑Feldman doctrine.

Holdings

  1. Dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) is appropriate where the plaintiff fails to prosecute, has been warned, and no less drastic sanction is available.
  2. The court did not decide the jurisdictional issue because dismissal under Rule 41(b) was proper.

Key quotations

A plaintiff’s actions demonstrate bad faith, willfulness, or fault where they “display either an intent to thwart judicial proceedings or a reckless disregard for the effect of [plaintiff’s] conduct on those proceedings.”

Factual background

Plaintiff Patrick Reeners filed a pro se civil rights action alleging due‑process violations and malicious prosecution related to a state‑court order of protection. He filed multiple amended complaints without court permission and attached various state‑court documents. The plaintiff never responded to the defendants' motion to dismiss or to a court‑issued show‑cause order.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims. The plaintiff repeatedly amended the complaint without leave and failed to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss and a show‑cause order. The court entered a show‑cause order and, after the plaintiff's continued inaction, issued a report and recommendation to dismiss the action without prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…