REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

G. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

In response to this Court's Order (doc. 11), plaintiff Albert Bradley has endeavored to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failing to participate in the conference required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Doc. 16. Bradley's counsel cites his lack of federal court experience, his unfamiliarity with the Court's rules, his failure to master the Court's docketing software, and the fact that he was busy responding to defense motions. Doc. 16 at 1-2. He promises to "to put in the time and effort to review the federal rules of civil procedure and the local rules and correct any errors or omissions I have made by Monday, November 25, 2014." Id. at 2; see also doe. 17 (his Rule 26(f) report filed November 24, 2014).

Bradley has failed to show cause. There is nothing complex about the Rule 26 conference process. The parties confer, then jointly file a Rule 26 Report. Counsel's explanation that he had an "intellectual" but not a "gut level" understanding of the federal rules rings hollow, doe. 16 at 1, for on the very date he filed the complaint, the Court served its General Order (entered at the outset of all civil cases) advising him in simple terms of (1) the requirements of Rule 26(1) and (2) the court-imposed deadline for conducting the conference and submitting the report outlining the parties' proposed discovery plan. Doe. 3 (Order directing counsel "to confer" as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P.26(b) and L.R. 26.1(a), and imposing a deadline for conducting the conference and filing the required Rule 26(1) report). That Order also advised counsel of the need to conform the report to the language and format of the form set forth in the Court's Local Rules and attached to the Order. Id. While plaintiff's counsel later submitted his own unilateral Rule 26(1) report, doe. 17, he did so after the Court specifically ruled that a party "may not file a unilateral Rule 26(f) report." Doe. 11 (emphasis added). Moreover, he failed to adhere to the prescribed format for such reports.

Defendant Chris Tucker represented that, "[d]espite attempts to coordinate with Plaintiff, Plaintiffs counsel has failed to file the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report." Doe. 9 at 1. Bradley does not even bother to address, much less negate, Tucker's otherwise diplomatically worded assertion — that Bradley's counsel simply blew off a court ordered obligation. Nor has plaintiff's counsel abided by his promise to educate himself about the rules and follow them. Counsel seems utterly incapable of reading, understanding, and then complying with either the rules or this Court's straightforward orders.

Because plaintiff has failed to show good cause, this case should be DISMISSED for disobeying a Court Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 41(b) (authorizing dismissal for neglect of any Court order); see Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). In light of this result, the Court GRANTS the defense's stay and protective order motions. Does. 7 & 20.

SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.

GENERAL ORDER

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) requires the parties to confer, develop a proposed discovery plan, and submit a report to this Court. Subsequent to the filing of the report, a Scheduling Order must be entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Therefore, by the earlier of 21 days after the filing of the last answer of the defendants named in the original complaint or 45 days after the first appearance by answer or motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 of a defendant named in the original complaint, the parties shall confer as provided in Rule 26(f). L.R. 26.1(a). Thereafter, within 14 days after the required conference held pursuant to Rule 26(f), the parties shall submit to the Court a written report conforming to the language and format of the Rule 26(f) Report attached to this Order outlining their discovery plan. L.R. 26.1(b).

Except in unusually protracted or complex cases, the parties will be expected to adhere to the following deadlines and limitations:

Plaintiff's counsel shall ensure that a copy of this Order is served upon each party. Finally, a party who cannot gain the cooperation of the other party in preparing the Rule 26(1) report should advise the Court prior to the due date of the report of the other party's failure to cooperate.

SO ORDERED.