Diana Tran v. A&E Welding LLC - Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Diana Tran v. A&E Welding LLC, et al.

District Court, N.D. Indiana

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00577

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

DIANA TRAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Cause No. 1:25-CV-577-HAB-ALT
)
A&E WELDING LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court for an Order on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) in which the Magistrate Judge sua sponte recommends that the case
be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1) and the
Court’s inherent power to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 11). That R&R was
issued on February 3, 2026. The parties were advised of the 14-day objection period under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). That deadline has passed without any objections filed by the parties.
Plaintiff Diana Tran, proceeding pro se, filed her complaint against Defendants A&E
Welding LLC and Louis Lengacher on October 29, 2025. (ECF No. 1). On December 11, 2025,
the Court issued an order identifying three deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 9). The
Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies by December 26,
2025. Id. Plaintiff was warned that if she failed to amend, she risked dismissal of the lawsuit. Id.
Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline. On January 6, 2026, the Court issued
another order, extending the deadline to file an amended complaint to January 20, 2026, and again
warning that if she failed to do so she risked dismissal of the lawsuit. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff did
not file an amended complaint.
“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those
unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.
1999). As recounted above, the parties have not objected to the recommended disposition of the
case. The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge engaged in a
thorough discussion of the relevant law, and the Court finds that the R&R is not clearly erroneous

and is amply supported by the record. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
recommended disposition of the case.
The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(f)(1) and the Court’s inherent power to manage its own affairs as a result of
Plaintiff’s failure to cure the deficiencies in her complaint or to otherwise prosecute her case.

SO ORDERED on March 31, 2026.
s/ Holly A. Brady__________________________
CHIEF JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT