Filed: Dec. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 17, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr. , District Judge . During the course of discovery, Plaintiff Marcus Bell ("Plaintiff") filed his Motion for Release of Evidence for Discovery Purposes [29], Motion for Early Morning Meeting of Parties [34], and Renewed Motion for Release of Evidence for Discovery Purposes [35] (together, the "Motions"). On September 14, 2015, Defendants filed their Response [38], informing the Court that the parties agreed to meet on September 18, 2015, to discuss i
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr. , District Judge . During the course of discovery, Plaintiff Marcus Bell ("Plaintiff") filed his Motion for Release of Evidence for Discovery Purposes [29], Motion for Early Morning Meeting of Parties [34], and Renewed Motion for Release of Evidence for Discovery Purposes [35] (together, the "Motions"). On September 14, 2015, Defendants filed their Response [38], informing the Court that the parties agreed to meet on September 18, 2015, to discuss is..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge.
During the course of discovery, Plaintiff Marcus Bell ("Plaintiff") filed his Motion for Release of Evidence for Discovery Purposes [29], Motion for Early Morning Meeting of Parties [34], and Renewed Motion for Release of Evidence for Discovery Purposes [35] (together, the "Motions"). On September 14, 2015, Defendants filed their Response [38], informing the Court that the parties agreed to meet on September 18, 2015, to discuss issues including the discovery disputes Plaintiff raised in his Motions.
On November 5, 2015, counsel for Defendants sent an email informing the Court that, in light of the parties' discussions at the September 18, 2015, meeting, Defendants believe the issues raised in the Motions no longer need to be addressed by the Court. The same day, the Court entered an Order [40] ("November 5 Order") requiring Plaintiff to inform the Court, on or before November 20, 2015, whether his Motions were moot. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's Order.
On November 24, 2015, the Court entered an Order [42] ("November 24 Order") requiring Plaintiff to show cause, on or before December 4, 2015, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a lawful order of the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 41.3A(2), N.D. Ga. Plaintiff did not respond by December 4, 2015, and has not otherwise taken any action in this case.
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's November 5 Order and November 24 Order, after being advised that failure to respond would result in dismissal of this action. Local Rule 41.3 authorizes the Court to dismiss a case for want of prosecution for failure to obey a lawful order of the Court. See LR 41.3A(2). Under these circumstances, dismissal under Local Rule 41.3 is warranted.1
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to obey a lawful order of the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 41.3A(2), N.D. Ga.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Robert Bodron, Thomas Dockery and Keith Singleton's Motion for Summary Judgment [44] is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED
