Opinion
4:22-cv-01282-KGB-JJV
03-11-2024
JAMES DERREL PERSON #166462 PLAINTIFF v. RODNEY WRIGHT, Sheriff, Saline County Jail; et al. DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
JOE J. VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. Any party may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections should be specific and include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Recommendation. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
I. DISPOSITION
On October 19, 2023, Defendants served written discovery requests on Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 45-1.) Plaintiff failed to respond within thirty (30) days as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so on December 15, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel. (Docs. No. 4546.) Accordingly, I entered an Order compelling Plaintiff to respond to the outstanding discovery requests within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc. No. 47.) Plaintiff failed to respond, so on January 8, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Docs. No. 51-52.) I denied that Motion because it appeared from the record that Plaintiff may have not received the discovery requests nor my Order. (Doc. No. 54.) I directed the Clerk to mail Plaintiff a copy of the discovery requests and gave Plaintiff until February 28, 2024, to mail Defendants his responses. Id. I warned Plaintiff, “If Plaintiff does not timely answer the discovery requests, Defendants may renew their Motion to Dismiss.” (Id. at 1.) According to the Defendants, Plaintiff has not responded to their discovery request in accordance with my Order and now move, again, for dismissal. (Doc. No. 55.)
Based on the foregoing, I find it appropriate to grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. I specifically directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests on or before February 28, 2024. (Doc. No. 54 at 1.) Plaintiff has remained silent through this entire process and, therefore, appears to be intentionally disrupting the litigation process in violation of the Federal Civil Rules of Procedure.
Plaintiff has intentionally failed to comply, and dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff may cure this defect by immediately responding to these requests. But based on the record before the Court, I recommend this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
II. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 55) be GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 4) be DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order adopting these recommendations and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.