Lawrence v. Walgreens

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Therese Lawrence
v. 	Case No. 21-cv-641-LM
Walgreens
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Therese Lawrence, proceeding pro se, has sued her
former employer, Walgreens, for wrongful termination. 	On April
6, 2022, the court conducted a video discovery status conference
at which Ms. Lawrence failed to appear, despite receiving notice
of the hearing and having personally communicated with the case
manager about the hearing prior to its scheduled day and time.
Previously, the court issued a procedural Order (Doc. No.
9) following Ms. Lawrence’s failure to appear at two scheduled
hearings or meaningfully participate in the creation of a
discovery plan. 	That Order cautioned Ms. Lawrence that “[g]oing
forward, disregard of the court’s orders and/or failure to
appear may result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure
to litigate.” 	Id. at 2.
Given Ms. Lawrence’s multiple failures to appear and
otherwise participate in this litigation, the district judge
should dismiss the matter for lack of prosecution, sua sponte,
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 1:21-cv-00641-LM Document 13 Filed 04/07/22 Page 1 of 3

2
See Torres-Álamo v. Puerto Rico, 502 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2007)
(“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its
own docket, may dismiss a case for any of the reasons prescribed
in . . . Rule 41(b); Cintrón-Lorenzo v. Departamento de Asuntos
del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 526 (1st Cir. 2002) (citation
omitted) (court may dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) if
plaintiff fails to diligently prosecute the matter).
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district judge should dismiss
this case in its entirety for failure to prosecute.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion.
Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report
and Recommendation are subject to review in the district
court. 	See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. 	See id. 	Failure to file
any objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court’s Order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
Case 1:21-cv-00641-LM Document 13 Filed 04/07/22 Page 2 of 3

3
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 6, 2022
cc: 	Therese Lawrence, pro se
Melinda J. Caterine, Esq.
Case 1:21-cv-00641-LM Document 13 Filed 04/07/22 Page 3 of 3