REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, who was originally represented by counsel, filed this action against the Defendant alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. The file reflects that an answer was filed on October 16, 2018, following which a Scheduling Order was entered providing that, inter alia, the discovery deadline in the case was April 11, 2019.

On February 4, 2019 the Defendant filed a motion to compel, seeking an Order compelling the Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of documents. Plaintiff never responded to the Defendant's motion, so an Order was entered on February 20, 2019 granting the motion and requiring Plaintiff to submit proper responses to the cited discovery request within ten (10) days of the date of that Order. See Court Docket No. 20. The following week, on February 28, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as attorney for the Plaintiff. Counsel's motion set forth that counsel and her staff had attempted to contact the Plaintiff to gather the necessary information to complete discovery "to no avail", that Plaintiff had failed to provide substantive answers to Defendant's Interrogatories or other necessary responsive documents to the Defendant's Request for Production, and had "failed to meaningfully communicate with her attorneys", rendering counsel unable to assist with her case. Finally, counsel stated in the motion that they had advised the Plaintiff (via email) that they would withdraw as counsel if Plaintiff did not contact them by February 21, 2019, and that she had not.

The undersigned issued an order March 1, 2019 granting counsel's motion to be relieved, advising Plaintiff that she was now proceeding pro se, and further advising Plaintiff of the filing and other requirements for proceeding with her case, including the need for her to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing of any change in her address. Finally, as Plaintiff was now proceeding pro se, her time to submit responses to the Defendant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents was extended to March 15, 2019, with Plaintiff being further specifically advised that if she failed to provide the requested discovery or to otherwise comply with the Rules and Orders of this Court, her case could be dismissed. See Order (Court Docket No. 22).

The March 1, 2019 Order of the Court, which had been mailed to Plaintiff at her last known address, was returned to the Clerk as undeliverable (stamped "not deliverable as addressed unable to forward"). The "court only" docket reflects that the Clerk thereafter attempted to call the Plaintiff twice and had left a voice mail at the phone number for the Plaintiff obtained from previous counsel. No response from the Plaintiff was ever received by the Clerk. The "court only" docket also reflects that Plaintiff's previous counsel was to attempt to contact the Plaintiff one more time via email and would update the Court through a notification on the docket if they were able to contact her.

Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on March 27, 2019. In this motion, Defendant states that "Plaintiff has done absolutely nothing to prosecute her claims over the past nine months since the Complaint was filed". (emphasis in original). Defendant states that while Plaintiff has served no discovery and noticed no depositions, the "Defendant promptly issued written discovery to Plaintiff and has spent the past several months chasing Plaintiff's delinquent discovery responses and seeking to schedule Plaintiff's deposition", all without "any response whatsoever". Defendant argues that despite "numerous requests by Defendant and two Orders from the Court requiring Plaintiff to respond to discovery and warning of the dismissal of her claims, Plaintiff still has not responded to the written discovery or taken any other action to prosecute her claims". Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, with prejudice. See Court Docket No. 29. Finally, Plaintiff's former counsel has now filed the requested status report update, advising that none of the emails or text messages they sent to the Plaintiff have been returned or responded to. See Court Docket No. 30.

Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that neither the Court nor the Defendant have any means of contacting the Plaintiff concerning her case. Moreover, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp., Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982).1 Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.; see also Order (Court Docket No. 22.)

The Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at her last known address.2 If the Plaintiff notifies the Court within the time set forth for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation that she wishes to continue with this case and provides a current address, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for further handling. If, however, no objections are filed, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the District Judge for disposition. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [Magistrate Judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss suit when plaintiff did not comply despite warning].3

The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).