Dawson v. Bawden ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 ROBERT DAWSON, CASE NO. C21-1509JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 JOHN BAWDEN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On March 4, 2022, the court ordered Plaintiff Robert Dawson to show cause 16 within ten (10) days of that order why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) based on his failure to serve Defendants John 18 Bawden and Oracle Life Solutions, LLC (“Oracle”). (OSC (Dkt. # 7) (citing Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 4(m)).) Mr. Dawson responded by filing an affidavit of service on March 8, 2022, 20 representing that he timely served Mr. Bawden with a copy of the summons and 21 complaint on November 13, 2021. (AOS (Dkt. # 8).) With respect to Oracle, Mr. 22 Dawson has provided neither proof of service nor a response to the court’s show cause 1 order. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, the court DISMISSES Oracle from this matter 2 without prejudice. 3 Additionally, since serving Mr. Bawden on November 13, 2021, Mr. Dawson has 4 taken no further action to prosecute this matter against Mr. Bawden, despite the fact that 5 Mr. Bawden has defaulted on his obligation to answer to Mr. Dawson’s complaint. 6 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) (requiring defendants to answer the complaint within 7 “21 days after being served with the summons and complaint”); (see generally Dkt.). 8 The court reminds Mr. Dawson of his obligation to diligently prosecute his case and that 9 the court is empowered to take action, including dismissal of this matter, “to prevent 10 undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion” on its docket. 11 See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local 12 Rules W.D. Wash LCR 41(b). 13 Dated this 18th day of March, 2022. 14 A 15 JAMES L. ROBART 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22