Horton v. Security First Inc., No. 3:2017cv00279 - Document 10 (W.D. Ky. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 10/20/2017. On September 1, 2017 (DN 9 ), the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff directing her to file her right-to-sue letter in this action or to show cause why her Title VII lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to pursue administrative relief with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That Memorandum and Order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply within thirty days would result in dismissal. The thirty-day period has expired without a response from Plaintiff. By separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (CDR)

Download PDF
Horton v. Security First Inc. Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION ANDREA A. HORTON PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-279-TBR SECURITY FIRST INC. DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Andrea A. Horton, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint against her former employer Security First Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On September 1, 2017 (DN 9), the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff directing her to file her right-to-sue letter in this action or to show cause why her Title VII lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to pursue administrative relief with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That Memorandum and Order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply within thirty days would result in dismissal. The thirty-day period has expired without a response from Plaintiff. Courts have an inherent power “acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Therefore, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (governing involuntary dismissal). Date: October 20, 2017 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4413.009 Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.