ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the following:

BACKGROUND

This is a civil rights action concerning the August 21, 2010, raids on "African-American owned" barbershops, which are located in "African-American communities in Orlando, Florida." (Doc. 51, ¶¶ 2, 8, 42.) Defendants include Sheriff Jerry L. Demings (id. ¶ 33) and Olvie Demosthene (id. ¶¶ 35-39). Plaintiffs Jason Abrams, George Brown, Peguy Dorsonne, Mandrell Henderson, Michael Jones, Jackay Patterson, Lonell Robinson, Chrystol Rolle, Julius Roman, and Napleon Smith are African-Americans who owned or worked at the barber shops subject to the raids. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 22-32.)

The Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order on January 6, 2014, which required that discovery be completed by July 15, 2014. (Doc. 40.) In April of 2014, Sheriff Demings requested that Plaintiffs be compelled to respond to outstanding discovery requests. (Doc. 55.) Plaintiffs did not respond to Sheriff Demings' motion, which the Court granted on May 14, 2014. (Doc. 56 (the "May Order").) In the May Order, the Court directed all Plaintiffs to respond to Sheriff Demings' interrogatories and requests to produce documents on or before May 19, 2014. (Id.)

Plaintiff Abrams filed a notice of compliance with the May Order. (Doc. 60.) Counsel for the remaining Plaintiffs filed motions to withdraw as attorney of record. (Docs. 61-68.) Sheriff Demings then filed an unopposed motion for sanctions based on the failure of Brown, Dorsonne, Henderson, Jones, Patterson, Robinson, Roman, and Smith to appear at their noticed depositions and comply with the Court's May Order.1 (Doc. 69.) Demosthene joined in Sheriff Demings' unopposed motion for sanctions. (Doc. 76.) A hearing was scheduled before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding, and the Plaintiffs were required to attend. (Doc. 70.) Plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice that he had attempted to advise each of the Plaintiffs of the scheduled hearing at their last known addresses and phone numbers (Doc. 78); nonetheless, only Abrams, Rolle, Dorsonne, Patterson, and Robinson appeared at the hearing on June 19, 2014. (Doc. 81; Doc. 85, p. 2.) Defendants moved to dismiss the claims of those Plaintiffs who did not appear at the hearing. (Doc. 84.)

After the hearing, Magistrate Judge Spaulding entered Orders granting the motions to withdraw as to Roman, Brown, Henderson, Jones, and Smith (Doc. 83) and denying as moot the motions to withdraw as to the remaining Plaintiffs (see Doc. 82). The Court also ordered that on or before noon on June 27, 2014: (1) "each Plaintiff shall serve" responses to the discovery requests of Demosthene and Sheriff Demings; and

(2) "each Plaintiff who has not attended his or her deposition" shall select a date on or before July 15, 2014 for the depositions to be conducted. (Doc. 85 (the "June Order").) On June 27, 2014, Plaintiffs Abrams, Dorsonne, Patterson, Robinson, and Rolle filed a notice that they had complied with the June Order. (Doc. 86.)

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v), the court may dismiss an action in whole or in part as a sanction for a party's failure to "obey an order to provide or permit discovery." See Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1544 (11th Cir. 1993) (entering judgment against party as sanction for failure to comply with discovery orders). The Court also may dismiss an action if a "plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). "Rule 41(b) recognizes the inherent authority of district courts to involuntarily dismiss a claim ... for want of prosecution to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion of court calendars." Jenkins v. FMA Alliance, Ltd., No. 3:12-cv-627-J-12MCR, 2013 WL 3149451, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2013) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962)).

There is no dispute that Plaintiffs Roman, Brown, Henderson, Jones, and Smith have not responded to discovery, have not appeared at noticed depositions, and have not complied with the Orders of this Court. (Docs. 55, 56, 61, 62, 64, 65, 69, 70, 78, 81, 83, 85.) Accordingly, dismissal of their claims is warranted under Rules 37(b)(2)(A)(v) and 41(b), and the Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 84) is due to be granted. The motion for sanctions is due to be dismissed as moot given this dismissal Order and the notice of compliance filed by the remaining Plaintiffs. (Doc. 86.)

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

DONE AND ORDERED.