Thomas Lee Peaster v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

THOMAS LEE PEASTER,

Plaintiff, v. No. 2:26-cv-02030-KG-SCY CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pro se Plaintiff alleged his former employer Defendant Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. is a citizen of Massachusetts and wrongfully terminated his employment in December 2023 due to documented work restrictions, including a prohibition on extensive manual labor and a fifty-pound lifting limit. See Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed June 24, 2026.

United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough notified Plaintiff the Complaint does not show that the District of New Mexico is the proper venue for this action because it does not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in New Mexico. See Order to Show Cause at 1-3, Doc. 4, filed June 30, 2026. Judge Yarbrough ordered Plaintiff to either (1) show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case or transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts, or (2) file an amended complaint that demonstrates New Mexico is the proper venue for his claims. See Order to Show Cause at 3, 5 (notifying Plaintiff that failure to timely show cause or file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case). Plaintiff did not show cause or file an amended complaint by the July 21, 2026, deadline. The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not complied with Judge Yarbrough’s Order to either (1) show cause why the Court should not dismiss or transfer this case file an amended complaint, or (2) file an amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action”); Gustafson v. Luke, 696 Fed.Appx. 352, 354 (10th Cir. 2017) (“Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to dismiss, the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court's orders.”) (quoting Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)).

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. /s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE • Please note that this document has been electronically filed. To verify its authenticity, please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) accompanying this document. Electronically filed documents can be found on the Court’s PACER public access system.