Meener v. One Stop Housing, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
MUSSHUR MEENER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:25-cv-02528-MSN-cgc
ONE STOP HOUSING, LLC,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMENDATION
Before the Court, by way of Administrative Order 2013-051, is the Motion to Dismiss
filed on May 27, 2025 by Defendant One Stop Housing, LLC. (D.E. # 8) 	Local Rule 12.1
provides that “[a] party opposing a motion to dismiss must file a response within 28 days after
the motion is served.” To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion.
On September 29, 2025, an order to show cause (D.E. # 10) was entered directing
Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen (14) days of entry of the order as to why the Court should
not grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. To date, no response to the Order to Show Cause has
been filed2. 	Plaintiff was cautioned that a failure to respond would result in a recommendation
of dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. (D.E. # 10, PageID 107)
If a plaintiff fails properly to prosecute an action, it can be dismissed either pursuant to
the Court's inherent power to control its docket, or involuntarily under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Link
1 The instant case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge by Administrative Order pursuant to the
Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-639. All pretrial matters within the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction are
referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) for determination, and all other pretrial matters are referred pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) for report and recommendation.
2 The Order to Show Cause was mailed to Plaintiff at the address listed on the complaint and at the address provided
by Defendant’s counsel (D.E. # 9). Only one of the mailings was returned as unclaimed.
Case 2:25-cv-02528-MSN-cgc Document 13 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

2
v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Boudwin v. Graystone
Insurance Co., 756 F.2d 399 (5th Cir.1985). The Sixth Circuit has held that dismissal for failure
to prosecute is warranted where the Court affords a plaintiff a reasonable period of time to
comply with orders before the dismissal occurs, see Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254 (6th
Cir.1988); Sepia Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Toledo, 462 F.2d 1315 (6th Cir.1972) (per curiam).
In determining whether to dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute, the Court
generally looks to four factors for guidance: (1) whether the party's failure is due to willfulness,
bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party's conduct; (3)
whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4)
whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered. Knoll v.
American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir.1999). Typically, none of the
factors is outcome dispositive, and dismissal is entrusted to the discretion of the Court. Id. It is
recommended that the first factor is met as it is Plaintiff’s fault for not prosecuting his case.
There has been no meaningful activity by Plaintiff the Complaint was removed on May 19, 2025.
The Defendant has been prejudiced in that it has taken steps to further the case despite plaintiff’s
inaction. 	As to the third and fourth factors, it is recommended that they weigh heavily against
the Plaintiff. The Motion to Dismiss and Order to Show Cause made it clear that dismissal of the
case was under consideration by the Court. Plaintiff has ignored the Court’s order and has failed
to meaningfully participate in the case. Dismissal is appropriate pursuant to the Court’s inherent
power to control its docket.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Plaintiff’s Complaint be involuntarily
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 	41(b) and the Court’s inherent power and
Case 2:25-cv-02528-MSN-cgc Document 13 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

3
that the Motion to Dismiss be DENIED AS MOOT.
Signed this 14th day of January, 2026.
s/ Charmiane G. Claxton
CHARMIANE G. CLAXTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT MUST BE FILED WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE REPORT. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). FAILURE TO FILE SAID OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS
WITHIN 	FOURTEEN 	(14) 	DAYS 	MAY 	CONSTITUTE 	A 	WAIVER 	AND/OR
FORFEITURE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS,
AND ANY FURTHER APPEAL.
Case 2:25-cv-02528-MSN-cgc Document 13 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
<pageID>