Patrice Carter v. Memphis Shelby County Schools

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

PATRICE CARTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 2:25-cv-02237-TLP-cgc v. ) ) MEMPHIS SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOLS, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

Pro se Plaintiff Patrice Carter sued Defendant Memphis Shelby County Schools, alleging Americans with Disabilities Act violations. (See ECF No. 2.) Under Administrative Order No. 2013-05, this Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton to manage all pretrial matters. Nine months later, Judge Claxton issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) In the R&R, Judge Claxton notified both parties that they had 14 days to object. Neither party objected.

In the R&R, Judge Claxton recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). For the reasons below, this Court ADOPTS the R&R. BACKGROUND AND THE R&R Plaintiff sued here in March 2025. (ECF No. 2.) She also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3.), and Judge Claxton granted that leave (ECF No. 7.). Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint a few weeks later. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. Judge Claxton therefore ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days from entry of the Order why she failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 11.)

The Show Cause Order included the warning, “failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation for dismissal of this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” (Id.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Show Cause Order or the Motion to Dismiss. After waiting over seven more months, Judge Claxton entered the R&R. LEGAL STANDARD A magistrate judge may submit to a district court judge proposed findings of fact and recommendations for deciding pretrial matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B). And “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If the parties do not object, the district court reviews the R&R for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes. And the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Judge Claxton entered her R&R on September 26, 2025. Because neither party objected, the Court therefore reviews the R&R for clear error.

DISPOSITION Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Claxton’s R&R. In fact, the Court agrees with her well-reasoned analysis.

As Judge Claxton correctly establishes that the Court looks at four factors when it determines whether to dismiss a claim under Rule 41(b). (ECF No. 13 at PageID 44.) (1) whether the party's failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party's conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered. (Id. (citing Knoll v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999)).)

Analyzing these factors, Judge Claxton found that Plaintiff bears the fault for not prosecuting her own case. (Id. at PageID 44.) She also found that Defendant suffered prejudice by litigating the case despite Plaintiff’s inaction. (Id. at PageID 45.) Judge Claxton noted that both the Motion to Dismiss and Show Cause Order put Plaintiff on notice that her case could be dismissed. (Id.) She held that dismissal was the appropriate remedy in this case. (Id.) Given Plaintiff’s lack of activity since filing the Complaint over a year ago, the Court agrees, finding that less drastic sanctions are not warranted in this case.

Having found no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R’s recommendation.

CONCLUSION The Court has reviewed Judge Claxton’s R&R and finds no clear error. And so the Court ADOPTS the R&R’s recommendation. And so the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims WITH PREJUDICE. The Court also DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as moot.

SO ORDERED, this 26th day of March, 2026. s/Thomas L. Parker THOMAS L. PARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE