Dodson v. Affinia Healthcare

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
REGINA DODSON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:25-CV-01053 RHH
)
AFFINIA HEALTHCARE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Regina Dodson’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
of this action. [ECF No. 25]. After review of the record in this matter, the Court will deny
Plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff Regina Dodson filed this employment discrimination action on July 18, 2025,
against Defendant Affinia Healthcare by filing a pro se civil complaint. [ECF No. 1]. She asserted
claims of race, color, age and disability discrimination against her former employer, Affinia
Healthcare, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e,
et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq., the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq.
On July 23, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
ordered Plaintiff to amend her Complaint on a Court-provided Employment Discrimination
Complaint Form. Plaintiff was also ordered to provide the Court with a copy of her Charge of
Discrimination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). [ECF No. 4].
Case: 4:25-cv-01053-RHH Doc. #: 26 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On September 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Remand Submission of Plaintiff
EEOC Amended Complaint in Compliance with Judge’s Order.” [ECF No. 11]. Plaintiff’s filing,
did not comply with the Court’s July 23, 2025 Memorandum and Order. She not only failed to file
a timely Amended Complaint on a Court-provided Employment Discrimination Complaint form,
but she also failed to provide the Court with a copy of her Charge of Discrimination from the
EEOC.1 As such, on October 15, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file her Amended Complaint
on the Court form no later than Friday, November 15, 2025, along with a copy of her Charge of
Discrimination. [ECF No. 18]. Plaintiff was specifically warned that her failure to comply with
the Court’s Order would necessitate dismissal of this action, without prejudice.
Despite being warned of the possibility of dismissal of this action if she failed to comply
with the Court’s Order, Plaintiff failed to file her Amended Complaint or her Charge of
Discrimination on November 15, 2025. As such, on November 20, 2025, the Court dismissed this
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
a Court Order. [ECF No. 24]. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was denied as moot.
On November 25, 2025, approximately five days after the dismissal of this action, Plaintiff
filed a document titled, “Motion for 30-day Extension to respond to the Defendants [sic] Motion
to Dismjiss Plaintiff Amended EEOC Complaint for Cause and Lack of Due Process and
Reinstatement of the Case.” [ECF No. 25]. Plaintiff complains in a conclusory manner that because
she was not familiar with Court rules and processes, she could not comply with Court orders. She
also states that due to mail disruption from a tornado that occurred in May of 2025, she had to
1On September 26, 2025, Defendant Affinia Healthcare filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative,
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Comply with the Court’s July 23, 2025 Memorandum and Order. [ECF Nos.
14 and 15]. On October 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff requested thirty (30) days to respond to the Motion to Dismiss citing issues
with obtaining the mail due to tornado damage on her home. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request.
Case: 4:25-cv-01053-RHH Doc. #: 26 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
move her mailing address in the case.2 But even pro se litigants are required to abide by the Court’s
Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See U.S. v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.
1994); Boswell v. Honorable Governor of Texas, 138 F.Supp.2d 782, 785 (N.D. Texas 2000). And
as noted in Footnote 2, Plaintiff was provided an extension of time to respond when she sought
one, and she failed to inform the Court until after the case was dismissed that she wanted to update
her mailing address. Additionally, Plaintiff was told on July 23, 2025, to submit an Amended
Complaint on a Court-provided form, as well as a copy of her Charge of Discrimination from the
EEOC. She has failed to do so as of today’s date. Thus, she is still not in compliance with this
Court’s Orders.
Considering these factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration of
the dismissal of this action. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
of this action [ECF No. 25] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to respond
to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.
2Although Plaintiff states that there was mail disruption due to the tornado, she admits that the Court
provided her an extension of time to respond to the Court orders when she requested one. Additionally, to
the extent Plaintiff is just now indicating that she wishes to update her address because of mailing
difficulties, it was her responsibility to keep the Court aware of her updated address throughout the entirety
of this action, as set forth in the Local Rule. See 2.06(B) (“Every self-represented party shall promptly
notify the Clerk and all other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address and telephone
number. If any mail to a self-represented plaintiff or petitioner is returned to the Court without a forwarding
address and the self-represented plaintiff or petitioner does not notify the Court of the change of address
within thirty (30) days, the Court may, without further notice, dismiss the action without prejudice.”).
Plaintiff cannot attempt to update her address post-dismissal. Additionally, the Court points out that at no
time in this action was any of Plaintiff’s mail returned to the Court.
Case: 4:25-cv-01053-RHH Doc. #: 26 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this action would not be taken in good
faith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not accept any additional filings in this
closed action unless they relate to an appeal.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2025.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01053-RHH Doc. #: 26 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>