Bagby v. CP Kelco U.S., Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KAREFFREN BAGBY, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-459-JFH
)
CP KELCO U.S., INC.; 	)
EXCEL CONTRACTORS, LLC; 	)
and CSI CONSTRUCTION 	)
SERVICES, LLC, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on a review for Plaintiff’s compliance
with this Court’s Order to Show Cause entered January 15, 2026. 	Because
Plaintiff has not prosecuted or participated in this case further, consents to the
jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge could not be
obtained. 	As a result, this case was reassigned to a United States District Judge
and the undersigned offers these Findings and Recommendation concerning
Plaintiff’s conduct in this action.
On November 21, 2024, Defendant CP Kelco U.S., Inc. removed this action
from the District Court in and for Okmulgee County, Oklahoma. 	Since that
time, 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	obtained 	service 	upon 	Defendant 	CSI 	Construction
Services, LLC. 	In order to determine the status of the case, this Court then set
the matter for a video Status Conference on January 15, 2026 by minute order
entered December 31, 2025. 	The electronic receipt for this filing indicates it
was transmitted and received by Plaintiff’s counsel at his last e-mail address on
6:24-cv-00459-RAW Document 19 Filed in ED/OK on 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3

2
record. 	This Court attempted to conduct the video Status Conference but
Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear. 	Thereafter, this Court entered a Show Cause
Order on January 15, 2026 noting Plaintiff’s deficiencies and directing that she
show cause in writing by January 22, 2026 as to why this case should not be
dismissed for the failure to timely prosecute. 	Indeed, the Show Cause Order
contained the following warning and admonition:
THE FAILURE TO FILE THE SHOW CAUSE REPORT BY
THE 	DESIGNATED 	DATE 	SHALL 	RESULT 	IN 	THE
REASSIGNMENT OF THIS CASE TO A UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE AND A RECOMMENDATION THAT
THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR THE FAILURE TO
TIMELY 	PROSECUTE 	THE 	ACTION 	WITHOUT
FURTHER ORDER OR HEARING.
Doc. Ent. No. 16.
To date, Plaintiff has failed to file the show cause report required by this
Order. 	“A district court undoubtedly has discretion to sanction a party for
failing to prosecute or defend a case, or for failing to comply with local or federal
procedural rules.” 	AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs.,
Inc., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009) quoting Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d
1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 2002). 	Further, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
authorize sanctions, including dismissal, . . . for failing to comply with court
rules or any order of the court, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). 	. . . Rule 16(f) ‘indicates
the intent to give courts very broad discretion to use sanctions where necessary
to insure . . . that lawyers and parties . . . fulfill their high duty to insure the
expeditious and sound management of the preparation of cases for trial.’” 	Gripe
6:24-cv-00459-RAW Document 19 Filed in ED/OK on 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3

3
v. City of Enid, Okla., 312 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002) quoting Mulvaney v.
Rivair Flying Serv., Inc. (In re Baker), 744 F.2d 1438, 1440 (10th Cir. 1984).
When dismissing a case without prejudice, “a district court may, without abusing
its 	discretion, 	enter 	such 	an 	order 	without 	attention 	to 	any 	particular
procedures.” 	Id. quoting Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d
1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2007). 	Essentially, Plaintiff has done nothing to further
the prosecution of this case since its removal to this Court. 	Further, Plaintiff
has ignored two orders of this Court. 	Consequently, dismissal is appropriate.
IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNDERSIGNED that this action
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling based upon Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute this case and the failure to comply with this Court’s Orders.
The parties are given fourteen (14) days from the date of the service of
these Findings and Recommendation to file any objections with the Clerk of the
court. 	Any such objection shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. 	The failure
to object to the Findings and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days will
preclude appellate review of the findings made herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2026.
_______________________________________
JASON A. ROBERTSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:24-cv-00459-RAW Document 19 Filed in ED/OK on 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3