Adamson v. Horwitz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
On October 6, 2025, the Court directed pro se plaintiff Trevor Adamson to
submit the full civil filing fee by November 6, 2025. (ECF No. 13.)1 As in its prior
orders addressing his continued filing fee deficiency (see ECF Nos. 9, 12), the Court
advised that “Adamson is again warned that failure to comply with this Order will
result in the dismissal of this action” (ECF No. 13, PageID.68). Adamson’s November
6 deadline has come and gone without his submission of the filing fee. He thus
remains noncompliant with the filing requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and has
1 Prior, the Court denied Adamson’s application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) without prejudice to the refiling of an amended application and
ordered Adamson to either submit an amended application with sufficient, complete
answers or pay the full civil filing fee by September 1, 2025 (ECF No. 9). The Court
denied Adamson’s subsequent motion to seal his amended IFP application, struck
that sealed IFP application, ordered Adamson to “properly file his amended IFP
application by September 22, 2025,” and warned that failure to do so would result in
dismissal of his case. (ECF No. 12.) When Adamson had not filed anything by October
6, the Court ordered him to pay the full filing fee (and explained that, even his
improperly filed IFP application were considered, it failed to comply with the Court’s
instructions on what an amended application must include). (ECF No. 13.)
TREVOR S. ADAMSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL A. HORWITZ et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-00420
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT [1]
Case 3:25-cv-00420 Document 16 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
failed—for a second time (see ECF No. 12)—to comply with the Court’s deficiency
order (ECF No. 13).
The Court thus DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE2 Adamson’s case for failure
to comply with the Court’s orders and want of prosecution. See Rogers v. City of
Warren, 302 F. App’x 371, 375 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing district courts’ “sources of
authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute”: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16(f), “which permits dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) when a party or
its attorney fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference”; Rule 41(b),
“which permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action if a plaintiff fails to
prosecute his case or to comply with a court order”; and “the court’s inherent power
to ‘protect the due and orderly administration of justice, and maintain the authority
and dignity of the court” (citation modified)); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 630–31 (1962) (explaining that “the control necessarily vested in courts to
manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases” 	entails 	the 	“inherent 	power” 	to 	sua 	sponte 	dismiss 	cases 	for 	lack 	of
prosecution); Gibbons v. Asset Acceptance Corp., No. 05-467, 2006 WL 3452521, at *1
(S.D. Ohio Nov. 29, 2006) (“[A]n action is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution
where the pro se litigant fails to comply with the Court’s orders or engages in a clear
2 On November 20, 2025, the Court issued an order dismissing without
prejudice Adamson’s complaint for failure to comply with multiple court orders and
for want of prosecution. (ECF No. 14.) The same day, Defendant Daniel A. Horwitz
moved to alter or amend the judgment to instead dismiss Adamson’s complaint with
prejudice. (ECF No. 15.) For the reasons stated therein, the Court GRANTS the
motion (ECF No. 15) and issues this amended order dismissing Adamson’s complaint
with prejudice. A separate judgment will follow.
Case 3:25-cv-00420 Document 16 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
pattern of delay.” (citing Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996);
Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991))).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2025
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00420 Document 16 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>