Carrillo v. Hester et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Susan Hester Carrillo
v. 	Case No. 21-cv-605-SM
Jane DuVall Hester and
Beth Hester Platt
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Susan Hester Carrillo, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, has sued her sister and her father’s ex-wife,
alleging that they illegally acquired, and later sold, property
that she should have inherited from her father. 	The Complaint
(Doc. No. 1) included plaintiff’s address in Takoma Park, MD.
On August 23, 2021, the court directed the United States Marshal
Service to serve the defendants. 	See Service Order (Doc. No.
7). 	Service was subsequently completed and counsel appeared for
the defendants.
On October 7, 2021, the copy of the service order mailed to
the plaintiff at the Maryland address was returned to the court,
undelivered, and marked “Return to Sender; Not Deliverable As
Addressed; Unable to Forward. 	Doc. No. 11. 	On November 9,
2021, the court received a similar notice regarding another
court order. 	Doc. No. 13. 	On December 3, 2021, the court’s
notice of a scheduled pretrial conference was returned,
undelivered, with a similar notice. 	Doc. No. 15.
Case 1:21-cv-00605-SM Document 18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 1 of 3

2
After the plaintiff failed to appear at the pretrial
conference commenced on December 15, 2021, the court rescheduled
the conference and attempted to so notify plaintiff at an
alternative address defense counsel provided at that conference.
That notice was also returned, undeliverable. 	Doc. No. 16.
Following plaintiff’s failure to appear at the rescheduled
pretrial conference, the court issued an order directing the
plaintiff to notify the court on or before February 14, 2022,
whether she wished to further prosecute this lawsuit, and if so,
to provide the court with an updated mailing address, as
required by LR 83.6. 	In that Order, the court warned the
plaintiff that failure to respond might result in dismissal of
this case for failure to prosecute. 	See January 13, 2022
Endorsed Order. 	That order was also returned to the court
undelivered. 	Doc. No. 17.
It appears that Ms. Carrillo has abandoned this case.
Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss the matter for
lack of prosecution, sua sponte, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	See Torres-Álamo v. Puerto
Rico, 502 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (“A district court, as
part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss
a case for any of the reasons prescribed in . . . Rule 41(b);
Cintrón-Lorenzo v. Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor, 312
F.3d 522, 526 (1st Cir. 2002)(citation omitted) (court may
Case 1:21-cv-00605-SM Document 18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 2 of 3

3
dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) if plaintiff fails to
diligently prosecute the matter).
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
this case in its entirety for failure to prosecute.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion.
Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report
and Recommendation are subject to review in the district
court. 	See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. 	See id. 	Failure to file
any objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court’s Order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
March 18, 2022
cc: 	Susan H. Carrillo, pro se
John M. Edwards, Esq.
Case 1:21-cv-00605-SM Document 18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 3 of 3