Mobley v. Farmer et al

Filing 54

ORDER: 1. The Magistrate Judge's 52 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court; 2. Mr. Hall's 48 , 52 Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED; 3. Mr. Hall's 41 , 43 Motions to Compel are DENIED AS MOOT; 4. Mr. Hall's 47 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT; 5. Judgment shall enter promptly. Signed by Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove on 5/10/2022.(KM)cc: COR and Kenneth Mobley by US mail

Case: 5:20-cv-00513-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 54 Filed: 05/10/22 Page: 1 of 3 - Page ID#: 212

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
KENNETH MOBLEY,
Plaintiff
V.
DIRECTOR FARMER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 5:20-cv-00513-GFVT-EBA
ORDER

*** *** *** **
This matter is before the Court on a Recommended Disposition filed by United States
Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins. [R. 52.] On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff Kenneth Mobley,
proceeding pro se, filed suit against multiple defendants alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
[R. 1.] On January 25, 2021, the Court dismissed all defendants except for Defendant Hall. [R.
11.] Since then, Mr. Hall has filed multiple motions to compel Plaintiff Mobley to engage in
discovery and to dismiss this action. [R. 41; R. 43; R. 47; R. 48; R. 51.] Consistent with local
practice, Judge Atkins reviewed the pending motions and prepared a Recommended Disposition.
[R. 52.] For the reasons that follow, the Recommended Disposition will be adopted.
After considering the record, Judge Atkins determined that Mr. Hall’s motions to dismiss
should be granted, while his motions to compel should be denied as moot. [R. 52 at 3.] In
support of dismissal, Judge Atkins references Mr. Mobley’s documented history of failing to
comply with discovery and abide by court orders. See id. at 2-3. For example, since the Court
held a status conference in this matter on November 29, 2021, Mr. Mobley has failed to file
several responses to motions when ordered, failed to “produce his responses to the written
discovery requests” of Mr. Hall, and failed to update his address to the Clerk as required by both

Case: 5:20-cv-00513-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 54 Filed: 05/10/22 Page: 2 of 3 - Page ID#: 213

the local rules and court order. Id. (citing L.R. 5.3(e) and R. 8 at 2.) Accordingly, Judge Atkins
recommends dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and comply with the rules and
orders of the court. Id. at 2 (citing Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dept., 529 F.3d 731, 736
(6th Cir. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Because Judge Atkins recommends dismissal, he
also recommends the court deny as moot the remainder of Mr. Hall’s pending motions. Id. at 3.
Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a
recommended disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no
objections are made, however, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or
legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard . . . .” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation are also
barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that Report and Recommendation. United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Report and
Recommendation have been filed, and the time to do so has now expired. 1 Nevertheless, this
Court has considered the record, and it ultimately agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation.
Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED
as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [R. 52 ] is ADOPTED as and for
the Opinion of the Court;

1

Though Magistrate Judge Atkins’s Report and Recommendation [R. 52] was returned
undelivered [R. 53] and it is likely that Mr. Mobley was unable to review the Recommendation
prior to the expiration of the objection period, it is the responsibility of the parties to ensure that
the Court always has a current address on file during the pendency of litigation. Mr. Mobley was
notified of this requirement at the start of this litigation and has updated his address previously.
[R. 8; R. 31.] His failure to do so prior to the mailing of the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation does not warrant him additional time to object.
2

Case: 5:20-cv-00513-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 54 Filed: 05/10/22 Page: 3 of 3 - Page ID#: 214

2. Mr. Hall’s Motions to Dismiss [R. 48; R. 52] are GRANTED;
3. Mr. Hall’s Motions to Compel [R. 41; R. 43] are DENIED AS MOOT;
4. Mr. Hall’s Motion for Reconsideration [R. 47] is DENIED AS MOOT;
5. Judgment shall enter promptly.

This the 10th day of May, 2022.

3