Norwood v. Genesis Medical Center Illini Campus et al
Filing
32
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and ORDER finding as moot Defendant's 31 Motion to Continue. It is therefore recommended that this case be dismissed, either as a sanction or for failure to prosecute. Entered by Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman on 5/9/2013. (cc: Pro Se Plf)(RK, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 10 May, 2013 09:33:42 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Felicia A. Norwood,
Plaintiff
v.
Genesis Medical Center Illini Campus,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 11-4059
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
and ORDER
Now before the Court are the Defendant’s motion to dismiss (#29) and motion to
continue (#31). The District Judge has referred the motion to dismiss to me for a Report
and Recommendation. As stated herein, I recommend that the motion to dismiss be
GRANTED, and I find the motion to continue MOOT.
On November 30, 2012, an Order was entered, granting in substantial part1 the
Defendant’s motion to compel the pro se plaintiff to respond to outstanding document
requests and unanswered interrogatories. The possibility of imposition of “harsh”
sanctions under Rule 37 was discussed, but the Court determined that, because of
Plaintiff’s pro se status, she would be given one last opportunity to comply with her
obligations.
She was therefore ordered to make available for inspection and copying the
requested documents, and was given a deadline of December 14, 2012 to contact
Defendant’s attorney to make arrangements for doing so. She was also ordered to serve
signed answers to the previously unanswered interrogatories by the same date. She was
1
One of the unanswered interrogatories was temporally limited by the Order, and the request for mental
health records was denied as irrelevant to the claims and defenses. In all other respects, the motion to
compel was granted.
then warned that failing to contact defendant’s attorney “will result in the imposition of
Rule 37 sanctions.”
Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on December 17, 2012, stating that as of that
date, Plaintiff had not contacted defense counsel, nor had she produced any documents or
interrogatory answers. Defendant asks that her case be dismissed for failing to comply
with discovery orders under FRCP 37(b)(2). Plaintiff has filed nothing in response to the
motion.
I find that Plaintiff’s conduct in this case – namely, her failure to respond to
Defendant’s discovery; her failure to respond to defense counsel’s good faith efforts to
contact Plaintiff and resolve the issue; her failure to comply with the Court’s Order; and
her failure to respond to the instant motion – demonstrate a pattern of willful conduct
that justifies the imposition of harsh sanctions under Rule 37. Moreover, this same
pattern demonstrates a failure to prosecute her case under FRCP 41(b).
I therefore recommend that this case be dismissed, either as a sanction or for
failure to prosecute. Because of this recommendation, I also find that Defendant’s motion
to continue the deadlines in this case is MOOT.
ENTERED: May 9, 2013
s/ John A. Gorman
JOHN A. GORMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?