Funderburk v. Baronnette

Background

Lance Miles Funderburk was the plaintiff. The caption identifies one defendant as C.O. “JOHN” BARIONNETTE (#7739), et al.; the opinion also refers to Defendant Appiah. The court stated that Funderburk had taken no action to prosecute the case for several years, Appiah had never been served, and Funderburk had not provided current contact information despite an earlier warning that he was responsible for reporting changes.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court considered the required factors, including the length of the delay, Funderburk’s notice that dismissal could result, possible prejudice from further delay, the court’s need to manage its docket, Funderburk’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction was available.

The court found dismissal clearly appropriate. It emphasized that Funderburk had failed to prosecute the case for several years, had not served Appiah, had not provided a way for the court to contact him, and had received repeated warnings that the case could be dismissed. The court also found that no effective sanction short of dismissal was available and that the case could not continue to remain inactive on the docket.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was requested to close the case. The order did not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” qualifier to the dismissal.