Dale Stewart, Jr. v. Pike Industries, Inc.

Stewart · United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire · March 19, 2026 · No. 25-cv-00115-LM-TSM

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses Pike Industries, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Dale Stewart, Jr.’s employment-discrimination and retaliation action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The magistrate judge concluded that Stewart repeatedly failed to participate in discovery, respond to court orders, or oppose the motion, and recommended dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Holdings

  1. The circumstances supported dismissal with prejudice because Stewart abandoned the litigation, repeatedly disobeyed court orders, failed to respond to discovery and motions, provided no mitigating explanation, prejudiced Pike Industries and the court, and had been warned that dismissal could result.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for Stewart's failure to prosecute.
  2. Whether Stewart's repeated failure to comply with discovery obligations and court orders, after notice and warnings, justified dismissal rather than a lesser sanction.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (13)

  • Chamorro v. Puerto Rican Cars, Inc., 304 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Malot v. Dorado Beach Cottages Assocs., 478 F.3d 40, 43-45 (1st Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Vivaldi Servicios De Seguridad v. Maiso Grp., Corp., 93 F.4th 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • United States ex rel. Nargol v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 69 F.4th 1, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • Vallejo v. Santini-Padilla, 607 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Malloy v. WM Specialty Mortg., 512 F.3d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 2008)(cited)
  • Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Robson v. Hallenbeck, 81 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1996)(cited)
  • Figueroa Ruiz v. Alegria, 896 F.2d 645, 648-49 (1st Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016)(cited)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…