Case ID: f-appx_5/html/0096-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Manuel ORTEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-6094.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 19, 2001.
    Manuel Ortega, New York, NY, pro se.
    Susan D. Baird and Gideon A. Schor, Assistant United States Attorneys; Mary Jo White, United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for appellees.
    Present WALKER, Chief Judge, OAKES, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Manuel Ortega appeals from a January 18, 2000, judgment of the district court granting dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for his failure to prosecute and to comply with the district court’s orders. On appeal, Ortega challenges the dismissal.

The record reveals that, beyond filing his complaint on November 3,1998, Ortega took no action to prosecute his case. Moreover, he failed to respond to three district court orders and has provided no reason for these failures. Ortega received three warnings from the district court that his failure to prosecute his claims and to comply with the court’s orders would result in dismissal. On December 22, 1999, the government filed a Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss, which the district court subsequently granted on January 10, 2000.

Rule 41(b) authorizes a defendant, in pertinent part, to move to dismiss a complaint “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with ... any order of court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). A Rule 41(b) dismissal is a matter committed to the discretion of the district court. See Colon v. Mack, 56 F.3d 5, 7 (2d Cir.1995). We review such dismissals only for abuse of discretion. See Spencer v. Doe, 139 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir.1998).

Having reviewed the record, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing the action is hereby AFFIRMED.