Nuneviller v. Department of Workforce Services et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
SARA MICHELLE NUNEVILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS
Case No. 2:24-cv-00254-JNP-CMR1
Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
This case is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (ECF 9). On
April 29, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff Sara Michelle Nuneviller’s (Plaintiff) application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and waived the prepayment of filing fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 (ECF 7). Plaintiff’s Complaint was then placed on the court’s docket (ECF 8). On July 19,
2024, Plaintiff lodged her Amended Complaint against Defendants Department of Workforce
Services, Lincoln Financial Group, CSL B Holdings, Inc., CSL Plasma, Stash, Apex Clearing,
State of Utah, Stride Bank, Department of Health and Human Services, Bud Bailey Apartments
Community, Mountain American Credit Union, Wells Fargo, Green Dot, Ally Bank, Capitol One,
Fidelity, Donated Dental Services, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Onesource Virtual,
Wakefield and Associates, Utah Apartment Association, and Timothy S. Deans (collectively
Defendants) (ECF 18). On April 7, 2025, the court found that Plaintiff had failed to adequately
1 On January 16, 2025, the court ordered that Nuneviller v. Stash, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00312-HCN-CMR,
Nuneviller v. State of Utah, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00413-TS-DAO, and Nuneviller v. Bud Bailey Apartment, et al.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00481-DAO be consolidated with the present matter for all purposes (ECF 19). In its Order of
Consolidation, the court noted that Plaintiff lodged an identical Amended Complaint and Motion to Consolidate in all
four cases (id. at 1). Because Plaintiff has filed an identical Amended Complaint in each case, for simplicity, the court
only refers to the one filed in the present matter, Case No. 2:24-cv-00254.
Case 2:24-cv-00254-JNP Document 23 Filed 10/27/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
state a claim in her Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file an updated amended
complaint by May 5, 2025 (Order) (ECF 22). The Order warned Plaintiff that failure to respond
timely may result in dismissal of this action (id.). As of the date of this Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff has not responded to the Order or taken any other action in this matter.
I. 	DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows involuntary dismissal of an action “[i]f the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with . . . a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also
DUCivR 41-2 (allowing dismissal for failure to prosecute). This court may dismiss actions sua
sponte for failure to prosecute. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)
(“Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to dismiss, the
Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court orders.”); see also Link v. Wabash
R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (noting courts have inherent authority to clear “their calendars
of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking
relief”). In determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court considers the following factors:
(1) the degree of actual prejudice to the defendant; (2) the amount of interference
with the judicial process; (3) the culpability of the litigant; (4) whether the court
warned the party in advance that dismissal of the action would be a likely sanction
for noncompliance; and (5) the efficacy of lesser sanctions.
Olsen, 333 F.3d at 1204 (quoting Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340 (10th Cir. 1994)).
Here, all factors weigh in favor of dismissal. This matter has been pending since April
8, 2024. On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to file an updated amended complaint by May
5, 2025 (ECF 22). Plaintiff failed to file any response to the Order despite a clear warning from
the court that this case could be dismissed for failure to timely respond. Plaintiff’s failure to
move this matter along interferes with the judicial process, and her culpability in failing to
Case 2:24-cv-00254-JNP Document 23 Filed 10/27/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
prosecute this matter is high. There appears to be no effective lesser sanction, and there would
be little to no actual prejudice to Defendants. In consideration of these factors and given that
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute is coupled with a failure to abide by the court’s Order, the court
finds that the circumstances in this case warrant dismissal. In addition, as set forth in the Order,
the court outlines the deficiencies in the amended complaint, including that it fails to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a claim (ECF 22). As a result, the
Complaint appears to be based on meritless arguments.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that
the court DISMISS this case without prejudice.
NOTICE
Copies of the foregoing Report and Recommendation are being sent to all parties who are
hereby notified of their right to object. Within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy,
any party may serve and file written objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object may
constitute a waiver of objections upon subsequent review.
DATED this 27 October 2025.
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Case 2:24-cv-00254-JNP Document 23 Filed 10/27/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3