UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING ESTHER SALAS COURTHOUSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 50 WALNUT ST. ROOM 5076 NEWARK, NJ 07101 973-297-4887

July 16, 2025

LETTER ORDER

Re: Arelis Bonilla v. Spectrum, et al. Civil Action No. 24-10664 (ES) (JBC)

Dear Litigants:

On March 19, 2025, The Honorable James B. Clark, U.S.M.J., issued an Order to Show Cause (“OTSC”) providing: (i) pro se Plaintiff Arelis Bonilla (“Plaintiff”) was required to appear, in person, on April 16, 2025, “to show cause why her claims should not be recommended for dismissal”; and (ii) to “submit a written statement outlining why her claims should not be dismissed by no later than April 3, 2025.” (D.E. No. 10 at 1) (emphasis in original). Judge Clark further cautioned that, if Plaintiff failed to appear as directed, “the Court may recommend dismissal of [her] claims without further notice.” (Id.). Judge Clark also directed defense counsel to serve a copy of the OTSC on Plaintiff via the personal e-mail address she provided when filing this matter in the New Jersey Superior Court. (Id. at 1-2; see also Compl. D.E. No. 1-2 at 5). The record reflects that Plaintiff neither filed a written submission as directed in the R&R, nor attended the April 16, 2025 hearing.

On May 1, 2025, Judge Clark issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice “based on her [her failure] to comply with Court orders and prosecute her case”, in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) and 41(b). (D.E No. 11 (“R&R”) at 1, 3). In His Honor’s R&R, Judge Clark recounted Plaintiff’s conduct to date and carefully analyzed the relevant factors that the United States Court of Appeals discussed in Poulis v. State Farm Casualty Co.,

(3d Cir. 1984). (R&R at 3–5). Judge Clark provided the parties fourteen days to file and serve objections to the R&R pursuant to

, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2). (Id. at 5). Any such objections were therefore due by May 15, 2025. Judge Clark also directed both the Clerk of Court and defense counsel to serve copies of the R&R on Plaintiff. (Id.). To date, no party has objected to the R&R. Nor has Plaintiff otherwise participated in this matter.

Accordingly, having reviewed the record and Judge Clark’s unopposed R&R, and for the reasons stated therein, and for good cause shown, IT IS on this 16th day of July, 2025,

ORDERED that Judge Clark’s unopposed R&R (D.E. No. 11) is ADOPTED in full; and it is further ORDERED that all of Plaintiff’s claims in this matter are DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE Docket Entry Number 11; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff via regular and certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.

s/ Esther Salas Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.