Opinion
C. A. 3:22-2332-SAL-PJG
05-23-2024
Deborah Garrick, Plaintiff, v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, Secretary U.S. Department of Defense; Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. On March 13, 2024, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery, failed to comply with a court order, and failed to prosecute her case. (ECF No. 83.) By order of this court filed March 13, 2024, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures and the possible consequences if she failed to respond adequately. (ECF No. 84.) Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant's motion.
On February 28, 2024, the court issued an order granting the defendant's motion to compel without opposition filed, and directed the plaintiff to respond to the defendant's discovery requests within seven days. (ECF No. 76.) The plaintiff was specifically warned that her failure to comply may result in sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of her Complaint. (Id.) According to the defendant, as of the date of his motion to dismiss, the plaintiff has failed to provide any responses to discovery. Therefore, the plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982).
She is personally responsible for proceeding in a dilatory fashion, the defendant is suffering prejudice by continuing to have these claims clouding his career and continuing to incur legal expenses, and no sanctions appear to exist other than dismissal given the previous warnings and extensions provided. Chandler Leasing Corp., 669 F.2d at 920.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the defendant's motion to dismiss be granted and that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with an order of the court. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating that magistrate judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from the plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss the suit when the plaintiff did not comply despite the warning), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.' ” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).