Williams v. Holt

Full title: CHALMUS CURTIS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MAJOR HOLT, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division

Date published: Oct 15, 2007

Civil Action No. 5:06-cv-334 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Oct. 15, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 5:06-cv-334 (HL).

October 15, 2007

ORDER

HUGH LAWSON, District Judge

The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Claude W. Hicks, Jr., entered September 5, 2007 (Doc. 31), in the above-captioned case is before the Court. Plaintiff has failed to file written objections to the Recommendation, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Instead, on September 28, 2007, Plaintiff made a request for appointment of counsel, in which he noted that he did not want his case dismissed.

The basis for the Magistrate Judge's recommendation of dismissal is Plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery. Defendants first brought Plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery to the Court's attention on April 27, 2007, when they filed a motion to compel or, in the alternative, to dismiss. At that time, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order. On August 31, 2007, without waiting for the Magistrate Judge to rule on the first motion, Defendants filed another motion to dismiss for failure to respond to discovery. On September 5, 2007, the Magistrate Judge entered the Recommendation at issue here in which he recommended that both motions to dismiss be granted.

First, the Court notes that the Magistrate Judge ruled on the second motion to dismiss before Plaintiff's time to respond to the motion had passed. However, it makes no difference because the Magistrate properly granted the first motion to dismiss. Plaintiff never explained his failure to respond to discovery and, despite the filing of the first motion, has undertaken no steps to comply with discovery. Plaintiff's repeated statements of his need for appointment of counsel do not excuse his failure to participate in discovery. In view of Plaintiff's complete failure to comply with discovery or explain his failure, dismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court accepts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge insofar as it recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27) be granted; Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) is thereby rendered moot; Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 32) is denied; Defendants' Motion for Adoption of Recommendation (Doc. 34) is granted.

SO ORDERED.