Howell v. Smith & Nephew

Filing 51

ORDER adopting 50 Report and Recommendations and granting 46 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 7/25/13. (Anderson, S.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ KATHY HOWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 12-2059-STA-tmp ) SMITH & NEPHEW, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ______________________________________________________________________________ Before the Court is Defendant Smith & Nephew’s Motion to Dismiss (D.E. # 46) filed on April 8, 2013, and the United States Magistrate Judge’ Report and Recommendation that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted (D.E. # 50) filed on June 7, 2013. A bench trial in this matter is currently set for September 30, 2013. Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) as a discovery sanction. According to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, even after the Magistrate Judge’s granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to submit discovery responses. Not only did Plaintiff fail to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order, Plaintiff also failed to file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss within the time permitted. Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge entered a show cause order, directing Plaintiff to file a response to the Motion within fourteen (14) days. The Magistrate Judge specifically warned Plaintiff that her failure to respond would result in a recommendation to the Court that Plaintiff’s case be 1 dismissed. To date Plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order. The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted. Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation were due within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report, making the objections due no later than June 24, 2013.1 Neither party has filed objections within the time permitted. Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation de novo, the parties’ briefs, and the entire record of the proceeding, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: July 25, 2013. 1 The parties receive the benefit of three additional days under Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 2

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?