Reported / Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Yulonda Sherell Yancy Nelson filed her complaint against GXO Logistics on December 18, 2025. The court later directed Nelson to file an amended complaint by June 29, 2026.
After Nelson sought more time, the court extended the deadline to July 20, 2026. As of August 17, she had not filed an amended complaint or otherwise complied with that directive.
The Court’s Holding
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton recommended that the action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders. The order was a recommendation to the district judge, not a final dismissal.
The magistrate judge returned the case to the district judge’s docket and gave the parties until August 31, 2026, to file written objections. Any response to objections is due within seven days after the objections are filed.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Nelson did not file the court-ordered amended complaint by the extended deadline.
- The recommendation relies on Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to comply with court orders.
- The district judge will consider timely, specific objections de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that an extension does not excuse noncompliance with a pleading deadline. A pro se litigant’s failure to file a required amended complaint may support Rule 41(b) dismissal.
Because this is a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendation, the case remained subject to review by the district judge and timely party objections.