HAIRSTON v. KAISER ALUMINUM WARRICK, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
STEVEN HAIRSTON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-00409-JRS-MKK
)
KAISER ALUMINUM WARRICK, LLC, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO
D ISMISS C OMPLAINT WITHOUT P REJUDICE
On October 20, 2025, after Plaintiff's former counsel filed a motion to
withdraw appearance, the Court scheduled an ex parte telephonic status conference
to discuss the motion. (Dkt. 32). At the conference, counsel confirmed that they had
informed Plaintiff of the conference and provided the call-in information, but
Plaintiff failed to appear as ordered. (Id.). The Court then scheduled a telephonic
show cause hearing and status conference for November 6, 2025, and ordered
Plaintiff to appear to explain his absence at the October 20th conference. (Id.). The
Order also advised Plaintiff that failing to appear for scheduled conferences or
comply with Court orders can result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action.
(Id.).
Plaintiff again failed to appear at the November 6 conference. (Dkt. 34). At
that conference, Plaintiff's Counsel confirmed that they had informed Plaintiff of
the conference, as instructed in Docket No. 32. (Dkt. 34). The Court also noted that
a copy of Docket No. 32 had been mailed to Plaintiff. (Dkt. 34). The Court granted
Case 1:25-cv-00409-JRS-MKK Document 38 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Plaintiff 's counsel motion to withdraw and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he
should not be sanctioned for failing to appear for the October 20, 2025, and
November 6, 2025, conferences, by December 3, 2025. (Id.). The Court again
reminded Plaintiff that failing to appear for scheduled conferences or comply with
Court orders can result in dismissal of the action. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to respond.
The Court then set the matter for an in-person show cause hearing on
January 5, 2026. (Dkt. 36). The Court ordered Plaintiff to appear in person and
explain why sanctions should not be issued for his failure to respond to the
November 6, 2025, show cause order. (Id.). Once more, the Court informed Plaintiff
of the importance of complying with court orders and appearing for all scheduled
conferences. (Id.). The Court noted that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and
41(b) explain that a failure to comply with court orders, participate in discovery, or
appear for conferences may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the
case. (Id.). But Plaintiff did not appear for the January 5. 2026, hearing. (Dkt. 37).
At said hearing, Defendant orally moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute,
and the Court took the motion under advisement. (Id.).
Due to Plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with the Court's orders and
participate in this case, the Magistrate Judge recommends to the District Judge
that Defendant's oral motion to dismiss the case be GRANTED and this complaint
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2
Case 1:25-cv-00409-JRS-MKK Document 38 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation must be filed
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Failure to file objections
within fourteen days after service will constitute a waiver of subsequent review absent a
showing of good cause for such failure.
So RECOMMENDED.
Date: 01/13/2026
Distribution:
STEVEN HAIRSTON
726 Irvin Avenue
Evansville, IN 47715
Greer Glover
Jackson Lewis P.C.
greer.glover@jacksonlewis.com
Michael W. Padgett
Jackson Lewis P.C.
michael.padgett@jacksonlewis.com
Case 1:25-cv-00409-JRS-MKK Document 38 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>