Campbell v. CITY OF MEMPHIS SOLID WASTE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
ROSALYNN L. CAMPBELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 2:24-cv-02895-SHL-atc
)
CITY OF MEMPHIS, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Annie T. Christoff’s Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), filed January 23, 2026. (ECF No. 33.) The R&R recommends that (1) the Court
dismiss pro se Plaintiff Rosalynn Campbell’s complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute,
(2) deny Defendant City of Memphis’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) as moot,
and (3) deny the City’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 29) as moot. (ECF No. 33 at PageID 129.)
After the City served its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents (“Discovery Requests”) on Campbell in April 2025, Campbell failed to timely
respond. Thus, the City emailed Campbell, requesting a response, and she emailed back
“screenshots of emails confirming her applications to certain positions,” but did not provide
answers or documents relevant to the Discovery Requests. (ECF No. 29 at PageID 66.) The
City’s discovery struggles continued through June and July, resulting in the City’s Motion to
Compel, filed August 6, 2025. (Id. at pageID 66–67.) Campbell did not respond to the Motion
to Compel.
Case 2:24-cv-02895-SHL-atc Document 35 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

2
On October 27, 2025, the City filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 30.)
Once again, Campbell did not respond. Thus, on December 8, the Court ordered Campbell to
show cause for failure to respond, and to respond to both motions: she had until December 15 to
respond to the Motion to Compel and until December 22 to respond to the Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 31 at PageID 120–21.) Campbell was expressly warned that failure to
respond could result in both motions being granted. The Court also warned Campbell that
continued failure to comply with court orders and the governing procedural rules could result in
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The instant R&R followed, filed on January 23, 2026. (ECF No. 33.) The R&R
acknowledges Campbell’s continued failure to respond to the City’s motions and the Court’s
orders. (Id. at PageID 124.) It also notes that “since the unsuccessful mediation on June 2, 2025,
[Campbell] has taken no action in this case, on the docket, or otherwise, despite the City’s
Motion to Compel and Motion for Summary Judgment; the Court’s Order to Show Cause; and
the impending pretrial conference on February 13, 2025, and the trial on February 23, 2026.”
(Id.) Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the R&R concludes that “dismissal of
Campbell’s case is the only appropriate sanction” for her failure to prosecute because all four
Carpenter factors favor dismissal. (Id. at PageID 126.)
The Carpenter factors guide courts when determining whether to dismiss under Rule
41(b), and they include whether (1) there was willfulness, bad faith, or fault on the plaintiff, (2)
the opponent was prejudiced by the plaintiff’s conduct, (3) there were prior warnings to the
plaintiff about the risk of dismissal, and (4) less drastic sanctions were considered before
dismissal. (Id. at PageID 125 (quoting Carpenter v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 704 (6th Cir.
2013)).) The R&R finds that, considering the record and these factors, “Campbell’s refusal to
Case 2:24-cv-02895-SHL-atc Document 35 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

3
prosecute . . . despite being prompted and ordered to do so, renders dismissal” appropriate. (ECF
No. 33 at PageID 128.)
Finally, the R&R recommends that dismissal “be without prejudice,” as it balances this
Court’s interest in judicial economy with the “public policy interest of deciding cases on their
merits.” (Id. (quoting Muncy v. G.C.R., Inc., 110 F. App’x 552, 556 n.5 (6th Cir. 2004)).) And
because of the dismissal recommendation, the R&R states that the pending motions should be
denied without prejudice as moot. (Id. at PageID 129.)
A magistrate judge may submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition,
a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2017). A district
court reviews de novo only those proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law to which a
party specifically objects; the rest are reviewed for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Campbell’s deadline to object to the R&R was February 6, 2026, and she filed none. The
Court has therefore reviewed the R&R in its entirety for clear error and finds none. The R&R
properly describes Campbell’s failure to prosecute her claim for age discrimination, and the
Court agrees that the case should be dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the Court
ADOPTS the R&R, DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and
Case 2:24-cv-02895-SHL-atc Document 35 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

4
finds that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The Motion to Compel (ECF No. 29) and
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 11th day of February, 2026.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02895-SHL-atc Document 35 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID
<pageID>