PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.

The following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:

DISPOSITION

Steven R. Tew ("Plaintiff") brings this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 3, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 19), stating they had not received responses to written discovery initially propounded on January 25, 2018. I granted Defendants' Motion to Compel on August 6, 2018, and directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc. No. 21.)

Defendants have now filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) informing the Court that Plaintiff has failed to respond within the allotted time, and requesting this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)1 and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).

Based on the foregoing, I find it appropriate to grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. I specifically directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc. No. 21 at 2.) In that Order, I also warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply would likely result in dismissal of this cause of action. (Id.) Plaintiff has failed to comply, and dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff may cure this defect by immediately responding to Defendants' discovery requests and notifying the Court through filing a written objection to this recommended disposition. But based on the record before the Court, I now recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) be GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order adopting these recommendations would not be taken in good faith.