Filed: Mar. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2016
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Proceeding pro Se, plaintiff Billy Ray Sullins and his wife, Angela Dawn Sullins, brought their own 42 U.S.C. 1983 cases against Garden City, Georgia police officers for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. Cv415-101, doc. 5 at 2; CV415-138, doc. 5. After the defendants answered (and Angela's separately filed case was consolidated into this case, CV415-101), they served discovery upon the plaintiffs but received no respo
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Proceeding pro Se, plaintiff Billy Ray Sullins and his wife, Angela Dawn Sullins, brought their own 42 U.S.C. 1983 cases against Garden City, Georgia police officers for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. Cv415-101, doc. 5 at 2; CV415-138, doc. 5. After the defendants answered (and Angela's separately filed case was consolidated into this case, CV415-101), they served discovery upon the plaintiffs but received no respon..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Proceeding pro Se, plaintiff Billy Ray Sullins and his wife, Angela Dawn Sullins, brought their own 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases against Garden City, Georgia police officers for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. Cv415-101, doc. 5 at 2; CV415-138, doc. 5. After the defendants answered (and Angela's separately filed case was consolidated into this case, CV415-101), they served discovery upon the plaintiffs but received no response. They thus moved to compel, CV415-101, doc. 20, and this Court granted the motion, including costs. Doc. 21 at 3-4 (citing Fed. R. civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) and granting plaintiffs 11 days to challenge defendants' cost claim). The Court also warned plaintiffs that their failure to respond to defendants' discovery within fourteen days would expose them to a recommendation of dismissal under abandonment and disobedience grounds. Id. at 4 (citing L.R. 41(b)).
Because the plaintiffs have not responded, the Court advises that their case be DISMISSED. Their opportunity to challenge the $818.49 in Rule 37 costs will elapse on March 12, 2016, see doc. 22 (defendants' cost claim filed March 1, 2016). Upon plaintiffs' failure to contest that, the defendants may present a proposed $818.49 judgment to the district judge to merge with any judgment on this Report and Recommendation.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
