REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

REONA J. DALY, Magistrate Judge.

The matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly by United States District Judge J. Phil Gilbert pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 41) and Defendants' verbal Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute (Doc. 49). It is RECOMMENDED that the District Court ADOPT the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On May 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed this case, as well as the case of Mack v. Elite Staffing (18-cv-2091-JPG-RJD), alleging unlawful discrimination and termination of employment. On December 14, 2018, the Court consolidated the two cases because they shared common questions of law or fact (Doc. 39).

On December 12, 2018, counsel for Defendants informed the Court that there was a dispute concerning Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' written discovery requests. The Court ordered Plaintiff to appear in-person for a discovery dispute conference on December 20, 2018 (Doc. 38). Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing (Doc. 40). The Court issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 41) why the case should not be dismissed for failing to appear before the Court and Plaintiff failed to file a response explaining her absence. Prior to the consolidation of the cases, the Court scheduled a status conference via phone for Mack v. Elite Staffing on January 3, 2019. Plaintiff participated in the scheduled phone conference and the Court explained the two cases had been consolidated and rescheduled the discovery dispute conference for January 9, 2019 (Doc. 42). The Court made clear to Plaintiff that the hearing would take place at the Benton Courthouse and that she was required to attend. On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice (Doc. 45) that she would be unavailable to appear before the Court on January 7, 2019. Although the date Plaintiff provided for the hearing was incorrect, out of an abundance of caution, the Court rescheduled the discovery dispute conference for January 15, 2019, so that Plaintiff could make arrangements to appear (Doc. 46). The Court made clear to Plaintiff that she was required to attend the hearing and warned Plaintiff that her case could be dismissed if she failed to comply with orders of the Court and attend the hearing. Plaintiff again failed to appear for the discovery dispute conference (Doc. 49).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute an action or to comply with court orders. Under Rule 41(b), an action may be dismissed "when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, or when other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailing." Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462, 467 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Williams v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 155 F.3d 853, 857 (7th Cir. 1998) (other citations omitted). The Seventh Circuit has identified several factors a court should consider before entering an involuntary dismissal, including:

Though dismissal is left up to the discretion of district courts, courts are strongly encouraged to provide an explicit warning before a case is dismissed; especially where the litigant is pro se. Fischer v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 446 F.3d 663, 665 (7th Cir. 2006); see also In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff has repeatedly exhibited disregard for this Court's Orders. The Court and counsel for Defendants have twice prepared for hearings at which Plaintiff failed to appear. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to meaningfully participate in the discovery process. Plaintiff's willful disregard of Court orders demonstrates a clear record of delay and contumacious conduct that has needlessly delayed this litigation. Plaintiff's repeated conduct is willful and in bad faith and dismissal of the case is a proportionate response to the circumstances.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is RECOMMENDED that the District Court ADOPT the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED; and the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objection thereto. The failure to file a timely objection may result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Report and Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 284 (7th Cir. 2004).

NOTICE

PURSUANT to Title 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 73.1(b) of the Local Rules of Practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, any party may serve and file written OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within fourteen days of service.

Please note: You are not to file an appeal as to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. At this point, it is appropriate to file OBJECTIONS, if any, to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. An appeal is inappropriate until after the District Judge issues an Order either affirming or reversing the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.

Failure to file such OBJECTIONS shall result in a waiver of the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal, which are addressed in the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Video Views, Inc. v Studio 21, Ltd. and Joseph Sclafani, 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

You should e-file/mail your OBJECTIONS to the Clerk, U.S. District Court at the address indicated below: