# Hickmon v. Packaging Concepts, Inc.

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · April 20, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10232880

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** April 20, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10232880

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

FORT HICKMON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:19-CV-2757 AGF
)
PACKAGING CONCEPTS, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff Fort Hickmon commenced
this civil action for employment discrimination on October 10, 2019, by filing a civil complaint
against his former employer and three of its employees. ECF No. 1. On February 11, 2020, the
Court granted plaintiff in forma pauperis status and reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). ECF No. 4. The Court found multiple problems with plaintiff’s complaint but allowed
plaintiff an opportunity to cure the pleading deficiencies by filing an amended complaint in
compliance with the Court’s instructions. The Court cautioned plaintiff that his failure to timely
comply with the Court’s Order could result in the dismissal of his case. Plaintiff’s response was
due by March 12, 2020.
To date, plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s order, nor sought additional time to
do so. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, he was cautioned that his case
would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and he was given ample time to comply. The
Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with
the Court’s February 11, 2020, Order and his failure to prosecute his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the authority of a court to
dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control necessarily
vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition
of cases”); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to
dismiss an action for the plaintiffs failure to comply with any court order).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate
order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 20th day of April, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10232880. Public record. Not legal advice.