Dinkins v. Ponte, 1:15-cv-06304

Dinkins, proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of medical care for a pre-existing lumbar disc condition and denial of an adequate mattress while jailed.
He filed his complaint on August 10, 2015; the court ordered the NYC Law Department to identify certain Doe medical personnel.
The Law Department could not identify medical staff without a HIPAA release, and Dinkins had been released from custody with no forwarding address, so mailed materials were returned.
The magistrate judge ordered Dinkins to provide a current address and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal; defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) when he did not comply.
Dinkins did not respond to the motion or supply an updated address; the magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice, and the district judge adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted under Rule 41(b)	Dinkins alleged constitutional claims (deliberate indifference / inadequate accommodation) but did not contest dismissal because he failed to respond or update address	Defendants argued dismissal is appropriate because plaintiff failed to provide a mailing address, preventing prosecution and compliance with orders	Court held dismissal without prejudice appropriate for failure to prosecute given prolonged delay, warnings, and ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (federal courts may dismiss for failure to prosecute)
Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601 (failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report waives appellate review)
LeSane v. Hall’s Security Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206 (dismissal for failure to prosecute is a drastic sanction reserved for extreme situations)
Ruzsa v. Rubenstein & Sendy, 520 F.3d 176 (factors for Rule 41(b) dismissal include delay, notice, and efficacy of lesser sanctions)
Martens v. Thomann, 273 F.3d 159 (courts need not address every dismissal factor so long as reasoning is apparent)