Pennington v. Kershaw County South Carolina et al

Filing 94

ORDER denying 92 Motion to Strike, dismissing the action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr on 09/24/2013.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jeffrey Pennington,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lt. Myers; Jackson; Lawson; McLeod; and
C.O. Alston,
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A: 3:12-1509-JFA-SVH

ORDER

By order filed August 27, 2013, this court declined to take the drastic step of
dismissing this action for failure of the plaintiff to comply with discovery obligations
required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, the court required that the plaintiff
pay to the defendant the costs of preparation for and attending the duly-scheduled deposition
of the plaintiff which the plaintiff failed to attend. The court allowed the plaintiff twenty-one
days in which to pay the $1,427.17 required by the August 27, 2013 order.
In response, plaintiff has moved to strike and objects to this court’s order adopting the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Defendants have responded to
plaintiff’s pleading, suggesting that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate under the
circumstances of this case.
The court agrees with the defendants. It was the plaintiff who initiated this action in
this court. That being the case, the plaintiff is obligated to comply with the Federal Rules

1

of Civil Procedure, one of which requires the plaintiff to submit to a deposition under oath
by defense counsel. Plaintiff failed to appear at his scheduled deposition and has failed,
despite being given several opportunities, to explain his failure. He has now ignored the
court’s order requiring payment of costs.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied and this action is
hereby dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 24, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2