Jamir Jordan v. Ms. Lloyd et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JAMIR JORDAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:23-cv-2327-DWD ) MS. LLOYD et. al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DUGAN, District Judge: This matter is before the Court to address Plaintiff’s lack of participation in this case. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery requests, two Court orders (Docs. 49 and 52), and to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 53).

Defendants served Plaintiff with two sets of interrogatories and one set of requests to produce on August 5, 2025. Plaintiff’s responses were due by September 5, 2025. On September 11, 2025, after not having received any responses, Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter in a good faith effort to obtain them without court action. Following Plaintiff’s failure to respond, Defendants filed a motion to compel. (Doc. 48).

The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the motion by October 17, 2025. (Doc.

49). The Court advised Plaintiff that a party who fails to participate in the discovery Page 1 of 3 process or comply with court orders may have his case dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or as a sanction. (Doc. 49).

Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order or provide interrogatory answers. (Doc. 52). Accordingly, on October 27, 2025, the Court granted the motion to compel. (Doc. 52). The Court directed the Clerk to send Plaintiff additional copies of the outstanding discovery requests and ordered Plaintiff to provide complete responses. (Doc. 52). Plaintiff was, once again, warned that failure to participate in discovery or comply with the Court’s orders may result in sanctions, including dismissal of his case. (Doc. 52).

On December 9, 2025, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions indicating that Plaintiff still had not responded to discovery or otherwise communicated with Defendants. (Doc. 53). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the motion for sanctions or otherwise communicated with the Court.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with its orders, failed to participate in the discovery process, and failed to prosecute this matter. Consequently, the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 53) is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b), 37(d), and 41(b). See generally James v. McDonald's Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005). The Court DIRECTS

Page 2 of 3 the Clerk to close the case and to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 12, 2026 s/David W. Dugan DAVID W. DUGAN United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3