1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES ABOTT, 

Case No. 14-cv-11778 

Plaintiff, Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

UNICARE, et al., 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST UNICARE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF #13) 

 Plaintiff James Abott (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants 

UniCare and the Ford Motor Company Salaried Disability Plan (the “Ford Plan”) 

on May 2, 2014. (See the “Complaint,” ECF #1.) The Ford Plan served an 

Answer to the Complaint on July 23, 2014. (See “Ford’s Answer,” ECF #5.) 

Plaintiff never provided the Court any evidence he had served UniCare with the 

Complaint. 

 On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to 

show cause why his claims against UniCare should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. (See the “First Show Cause Order,” ECF #7.) Plaintiff responded to 

the First Show Cause Order on September 22, 2014. (See ECF #8.) Plaintiff’s 

2:14-cv-11778-MFL-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 03/19/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 31
2

counsel explained that due to “human error [his] office neglected to serve 

Unicare.” (Id. at ¶8.) 

 After the Court vacated the First Show Cause Order (see ECF #9), Plaintiff 

served Unicare with a copy of the Complaint. (See Certificate of Service, ECF 

#12.) Unicare’s answer (or other response) to the Complaint was due on 

December 10, 2014. (See Dkt. #12.) Unicare did not timely respond to the 

Complaint and, to date, still has not filed a response. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has 

not moved for an entry of default as to UniCare. Nor has Plaintiff sought to 

advance his claims against UniCare in any other way. 

 On February 26, 2015, the Court entered an order again requiring Plaintiff 

to show cause pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local Rule 41.2 why his claims against 

UniCare should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (See the “Second Show 

Cause Order,” ECF #13.) The Court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that failure to 

respond to the Second Show Cause Order by March 12, 2015, could result in 

dismissal of the action. (See id.) 

 The due date for any response to the Second Show Cause Order has now 

passed. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response, filed a motion seeking to extend 

the period for responding to the Second Show Cause Order, nor contacted the 

Court even informally to seek an extension of time. Under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 

41(b), a federal court may sua sponte dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or 

2:14-cv-11778-MFL-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 03/19/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 32
3

comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-32 

(1962); Steward v. City of Jackson, 8 Fed. App’x 294, 296 (6th Cir. 2001). 

 Accordingly, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Second Show 

Cause Order, and his failure to otherwise prosecute his claims against UniCare, IT 

IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against UniCare are 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 19, 2015 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on March 19, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

 

2:14-cv-11778-MFL-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 03/19/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 33