Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00140/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00140-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KERRY CHAPPELL, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-140-MHT-GMB

 )

COLONY SPECIALTY INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

 )

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) this case was referred to the undersigned United 

States Magistrate Judge for review and submission of a report with recommended findings 

of fact and conclusions of law. Doc. 20. For the reasons stated herein, the Magistrate Judge 

RECOMMENDS that all claims asserted on behalf of Plaintiffs Texas Steakhouse of 

Alabama, Inc., d/b/a/ Club O (“Texas Steakhouse”) and B.A.T.S. Security, Inc. 

(“B.A.T.S.”) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2016, this case was removed to this court from the Circuit Court of 

Montgomery County, Alabama. Doc. 1. On June 16, 2016, the court denied Plaintiff Kerry 

Chappell’s motion to remand and granted Colony Specialty Insurance Company’s motion 

to realign the parties. Doc. 22. At that point, Texas Steakhouse of Alabama, Inc. (“Texas 

Steakhouse”) and B.A.T.S. Security (“B.A.T.S.”) were designated as plaintiffs, and Colony 

Case 2:16-cv-00140-MHT-GMB Document 35 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 4
Specialty Insurance Company was designated as the sole defendant. Doc. 22. Chappell 

remained a plaintiff. Doc. 22. On September 7, 2016, the court granted Colony Specialty 

Insurance Company’s motion to vacate a void state court judgment against it. Doc. 27. The 

court also vacated all post-removal proceedings that occurred in state court following 

removal. Doc. 27. 

On October 19, 2016, the court conducted a telephonic status conference during 

which Attorney Dan W. Taliaferro, who had entered a limited appearance for Texas 

Steakhouse and B.A.T.S., Doc. 10, represented that Texas Steakhouse and B.A.T.S. are no 

longer functioning enterprises and have no intention to prosecute this action or otherwise 

participate in the proceedings. Subsequently, the court issued an order directing all parties 

to show cause as to why the claims asserted on behalf of Texas Steakhouse and B.A.T.S. 

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Doc. 33. No party has expressed 

opposition to the dismissal of Texas Steakhouse and B.A.T.S. 

II. DISCUSSION

“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to

prosecute or failure to obey a court order.” Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dept., 205 F.

App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Even in the absence of statutory

authority, the Supreme Court has held that courts have an “inherent power” to dismiss

claims sua sponte for failure to prosecute as a result of “the control necessarily vested in

courtsto manage their own affairs.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). 

Here, neither Texas Steakhouse nor B.A.T.S. has made any filings since the case was

removed on March 1, 2016 and the parties were realigned on June 16, 2016. Attorney

Case 2:16-cv-00140-MHT-GMB Document 35 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 4
Taliaferro has appeared twice––once for the limited purpose of submitting a Conflict

Disclosure statement, and once to participate in the most recent telephonic status

conference. In both apperances, Attorney Taliaferro represented to the court that Texas

Steakhouse and B.A.T.S. are no longer actively operating entities and have no intention of

further participating in the lawsuit. Thus, there being no objection, the court recommends

that all claims asserted on behalf of Texas Steakhouse and B.A.T.S. be dismissed with

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

III. CONCLUSION

Therefore, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that all claims 

asserted by Texas Steakhouse and B.A.T.S. be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant 

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this

recommendation on or before December 1, 2016. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to which an objection is

being asserted. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the

district court. The parties are advised that this report and recommendation is not a final

order of the court, and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in

the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo

determination by the district court of issues addressed in the report and recommendation,

and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report and

recommendation that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of

Case 2:16-cv-00140-MHT-GMB Document 35 Filed 11/17/16 Page 3 of 4
plain error or manifest injustice. See Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982);

Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).

DONE this 17th day of November, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00140-MHT-GMB Document 35 Filed 11/17/16 Page 4 of 4