Ross v. Chandra

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION SUSAN CHANELL ROSS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00146-MTS ) DR. MENAKA CHANDRA, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time. Doc. [22]. In it, she states she seeks additional time to respond to Defendant’s Disclosure Statement. But Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to Defendant’s Motion to Strike, Doc. [14], and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [16]. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(B); see also In re Harris, 277 F. App’x 645 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (noting even pro se litigants must comply with court rules and directives (citing Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 92122 (8th Cir. 2005))). The Court will provide Plaintiff with ten (10) days to file all required responses to Defendant’s filings. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court may dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute it, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), or the Court may grant Defendant’s Motions, see, e.g., Scott v. State of Tenn., 878 F.2d 382 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“Because the plaintiff failed to make a timely response to defendants’ motion, the district court properly deemed the plaintiff to have waived his objections and found the defendants’ motion to be meritorious.”); Farraj v. Cunningham, 659 F. App’x 925, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's complaint based on his failure to oppose motions to dismiss). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, Doc. [22], is GRANTED in that Plaintiff shall have through Friday, September 13, 2024, to respond to all outstanding Motions. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this action. Dated this 3rd day of September 2024. CC dul UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE _2-