Doyle v. Kelley et al

Filing 20

ORDER re 18 MOTION to Compel Discovery. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE no later than December 1, 2022 why this entire case should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute with reasonable promptness. (Show Cause Response due by 12/1/2022). Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Ray on 11/17/22. (loh)

Case 4:20-cv-00254-JRH-CLR Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
JOHN ANTHONY DOYLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMANDA KELLEY, PATRICK
DOHERTY, and COREY
STEVENS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV420-254

ORDER
Plaintiff John Anthony Doyle submitted a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Complaint in October 2020 when he was a prisoner at the Chatham
County Detention Center.

Doc. 1.

District Judge Dudley Bowen1

screened his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and approved it
for service. Doc. 7 at 5. The Clerk entered a Scheduling Notice setting
discovery and motions deadlines. Doc. 16. Plaintiff subsequently filed a
notice indicating that his address changed from the Chatham County
Detention Center to 5469 Gate Road, Tamarac, FL 33319. Doc. 17.

1

The case has since been reassigned to Chief Judge Hall. See doc. 8 at 6.
1

Case 4:20-cv-00254-JRH-CLR Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 3

Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery explaining that they
served their interrogatories and requests for production on Plaintiff at
both his prior and updated addresses; he has not responded, and his
deadline to do so has run. Doc. 18 at 2-3. They also note that Plaintiff
has not responded to their deficiency letter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
37, and that he “has not served any discovery requests of his own or
corresponded with Defendants in any way, except for the Notice of
Change of Address, which Defendants received via the Court’s CM/ECF
electronic notification system.”

Id. at 3.

Plaintiff has not opposed

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery, and his deadline to do so has
run. See generally docket; S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 7.5 (“Failure to respond
within [14 days] shall indicate that there is no opposition to a motion.”). 2
Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ discovery
requests and Motion to Compel Discovery, he is DIRECTED to SHOW
CAUSE no later than December 1, 2022 why this entire case should not
be dismissed for his failure to prosecute with reasonable promptness.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630Defendants also filed a Motion to Stay and Extend the Discovery Deadline, doc. 19,
which asks the Court to stay discovery pending disposition of their Motion to Compel,
doc. 18. Doc. 19 at 2. Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to that motion has not yet run.
See generally docket; S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 7.5.
2

2

Case 4:20-cv-00254-JRH-CLR Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 3

31 (1962) (recognizing courts’ power “to clear their calendars of cases that
have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the
parties seeking relief.”).
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2022.

__________________________
_______________________________
CHRISTOPHER
RIST
STOP
PHE
HER L. RAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3