WILLIAMS v. VENTURE LOGISTICS

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JONATHAN WILLIAMS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-00065-JPH-MG
)
VENTURE LOGISTICS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER ADOPTING ENTRY RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL AND DISMISSING
CASE
Plaintiff Jonathan Williams brought this lawsuit against his former
employer, Venture Logistics, under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities
Act, alleging that the Defendant subjected him to discrimination and retaliation
based on his race and perceived disability. 	Dkt. 9 at 1–2.
On November 10, 2025, the Magistrate Judge ordered Mr. Williams to
show cause as to why he failed to appear for a telephonic status conference.
Dkt. 31. 	The order warned Mr. Williams that a "[f]ailure to respond will result
in an entry recommending dismissal of this action." 	Id.
Mr. Williams did not respond to this show cause order, thus, on
December 8, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered an Entry Recommending
Dismissal of plaintiff's case for his failure to prosecute. 	Dkt. 33. 	The Court
has waited fourteen days, and Mr. Williams has not responded to that order.
Case 1:25-cv-00065-JPH-MG Document 34 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I.
Discussion
"If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court
order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 	Unless stated otherwise, a dismissal under 41(b)
"operates as an adjudication on the merits." 	Id. Further, "[i]t is well-
established that district courts possess inherent authority to dismiss a
case sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute." 	GCIU Emp. Ret. Fund v.
Chi. Trib. Co., 8 F.3d 1195, 1199 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). 	This includes the power to dismiss a case for
"failure to comply with valid orders," repeated failure to meet deadlines, or
other "contumacious conduct." 	Thomas v. Wardell, 951 F.3d 854, 862 (7th Cir.
2020); see, e.g., Garner v. Metro. Sch. Dist. of Pike Twp., Pub. Sch. Corp., No.
1:23-CV-01748-RLY-KMB, 2024 WL 4710156 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 7, 2024) (adopting
magistrate judge's report and recommendation to dismiss the case with
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in part because Plaintiff failed to
obey court orders, missed deadlines, and had not filed anything in months).
Here, Mr. Williams has failed to prosecute this case in multiple ways. 	He
failed to attend a telephonic status conference before the Magistrate Judge,
dkt. 30, and did not comply with the Order to Show Cause explaining his
failure to attend the conference, dkt. 31. 	Further, the Order to Show Cause
warned Mr. Williams that if he failed to respond, the Magistrate would
Case 1:25-cv-00065-JPH-MG Document 34 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
recommend dismissal, yet Mr. Williams did not respond to the Order or the
Magistrate's Entry Recommending Dismissal, dkt. 33.
Mr. Williams failed to prosecute this case and follow Court orders,
despite being warned that such failures may result in dismissal of his case.
Therefore, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
Ball v. City of Chicago, 2 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 1993) ("Dismissal for failure to
prosecute is, as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), with prejudice, and appellate
review is highly deferential.").
All pending motions are denied as moot.
Final Judgment shall issue in a separate entry.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
JONATHAN WILLIAMS
28 East 16th Street
Apt. 301
Indianapolis, IN 46202
All Electronically Registered Counsel.
Date: 1/16/2026
Case 1:25-cv-00065-JPH-MG Document 34 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>