govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-2_25-cv-02625-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
WESTERN DIVISION 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
HENRY REA VES and NEV A REA VES,  
on behalf of their minor children, HR-14,  
HR-12, and WR-16, 
 
 Plaintiffs, 
 
v.              Case No. 2:25-cv-02625-MSN-tmp 
         
LAUSANNE COLLEGIATE SCHOOL,  
STUART DUNSTER individually and  
in his official capacity, 
 
 Defendants. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
ORDER OF DISMISSAL 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 On June 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint.  (ECF No. 1.)  On November 25, 2025, 
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12), arguing insufficient  service of process .  
(ECF No. 10.)  Plaintiffs never respo nded to the Motion to Dismiss, nor have any other filings 
been made in this case.  On March 18, 2026, this court entered an Order to Show Cause, directing 
that Plaintiffs show cause within seven days “why this matter should not be dismissed for failure 
to timely serve Defendants and for failure to prosec ute,” and warning that a f ailure to respond 
would result in dismissal “without further notice.”  (ECF No. 13 at PageID 35.)  Plainti ffs have 
not responded. 
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:     
If the plaintiff  fails to  prosecute or to  comply with these rules or a court 
order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.  Unless 
the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any 
dismissal not under this rule -- except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, 
Case 2:25-cv-02625-MSN-tmp     Document 14     Filed 04/01/26     Page 1 of 3      PageID
<pageID>
2 
 
or failure to join a party under Rule 19 -- operates as an adjudication on the 
merits.     
  
“Although the language of Rule 41(b)  appears to require  a motion by the defendant, the 
Supreme Court has recognized that the ‘district court has the inherent power to dismiss a 
case sua sponte for failure to prosecute.’”  Marchand v. Smith & Nephew, No. 11-cv-2621-STA-
cgc, 2013 WL 6780559, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 19, 2013) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 
501 U.S. 32, 48 (1991)).  The rule “allows district courts to manage their dockets and avoid 
unnecessary burdens on both courts and opposing parties.”   Shavers v. Bergh, 516 F. App’x 568, 
569 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 
1999)).  In determining whether to dismiss an action, district courts consider several factors, 
including the following:  
 
(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.     
 
Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 
176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999)).     
 Weighing the factors in this matter, dismissal is appropriate.  First, Plaintiffs’ failure is due 
to willfulness, bad faith, or fault.  Second, Plaintiffs were expressly warned that failure to respond 
would result in dismissal of this matter.  Third, under the circumstances, other less drastic sanctions 
are unlikely to be effective and are therefore not appropriate.  Although Defendant may not be 
prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ conduct, that weighs only slightly against dismissal.  Overall, the balance 
of the factors in this case favors dismissal. 
 Accordingly, this matter is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 
for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute.  Judgment will be entered accordingly.
 
Case 2:25-cv-02625-MSN-tmp     Document 14     Filed 04/01/26     Page 2 of 3      PageID
<pageID>
3 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 1st day of April, 2026. 
       s/ Mark S. Norris 
MARK S. NORRIS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
Case 2:25-cv-02625-MSN-tmp     Document 14     Filed 04/01/26     Page 3 of 3      PageID
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight