Bell v. Carey

Background

Renzer Bell, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a breach-of-contract action against John Carey, Dancy Auto Group, LLC, Great Neck Auto Sales, LLC, Macky Dancy Enterprises, LLC, Tyrone Hill, and Macky Dancy. Bell alleged that the defendants had executed agreements to purchase Range Rovers from him. The defendants failed to appear, and the clerk issued certificates of default in July 2019.

The magistrate judge directed Bell to seek a default judgment by specified deadlines and granted multiple extensions. The court warned Bell that failing to file the motion could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Instead of filing a default-judgment motion, Bell moved to amend his complaint. The magistrate judge denied that motion in July 2020 and again directed Bell to file for default judgment. Bell requested additional time to object to the denial of amendment, but by April 2021 he had filed neither objections nor a motion for default judgment.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute. Bell objected, apologizing for the delays and referring to the COVID-19 pandemic, periods of self-quarantine, and neck and back injuries during 2020.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it, meaning the plaintiff does not move the case forward. The court considered five factors: the length of the delay, whether the plaintiff received notice that delay could result in dismissal, likely prejudice to the defendants, the court’s need to manage its calendar compared with the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would work.

The court first concluded that Bell’s objections were general and did not specifically challenge the magistrate judge’s findings. It therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The court also stated that, even under a more searching review, the five factors supported dismissal. Bell had failed to seek default judgment for almost two years after the certificates of default were issued. He had received repeated instructions and warnings, including warnings that failure to file could result in dismissal. The court also found that little progress had occurred over approximately three years, that docket-management concerns favored dismissal, and that a lesser sanction would not be effective given Bell’s repeated noncompliance.

Disposition

The court accepted and adopted the magistrate judge’s April 12, 2021 Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the case without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion did not decide whether Bell’s breach-of-contract allegations were legally valid or whether he was entitled to a default judgment.

Judge

The opinion was issued and signed by Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Judge.