Lawrence v. Reed et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ANNDELL R. LAWRENCE, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-0204-MTS
)
LARESHA REED, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Christopher Smith and Defendant Seth
Stephenson (together, “Defendants”)’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss. Doc. [38]. The
Court has carefully considered the relevant briefing and finds the arguments therein well
taken. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this action as to these Defendants largely for the
reasons stated in their Memorandum in Support. Doc. [39].
Moreover, even setting aside the persuasiveness of Defendants’ arguments,
dismissal is required for a separate reason. Defendants filed their Motion on December 01,
2025, approximately fifty-three days ago. Doc. [38]. The Eastern District of Missouri
Local Rules state that “each party opposing a motion . . . must file” their response in
opposition “within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion.” E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(B)
(emphasis added). Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion, and his time for
doing so has long passed. “The Court construes such failure as an abandonment of
Plaintiff’s claims.” Thomas v. Walmart Stores, LLP, 4:13-cv-00565-HEA, 2014 WL
117645, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 13, 2014) (collecting cases and dismissing the action as to
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-MTS Doc. #: 45 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
the relevant defendants); accord B&L Farms v. Monsanto Co., 4:17-cv-02418-SNLJ, 2022
WL 9285881, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 14, 2022) (“[A] plaintiff’s failure to address a
defendant’s arguments on a motion to dismiss operates as an abandonment of those
claims.” (quoting Huskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 486 F. Supp. 3d 1339, 1349 (E.D. Mo.
2020))).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant Christopher Smith and Defendant Seth
Stephenson’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [38], is GRANTED. A separate Order
of Partial Dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate Defendant Christopher Smith and Defendant Seth Stephenson on the docket.
Dated this 23rd day of January 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:24-cv-00204-MTS Doc. #: 45 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>