Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_16-cv-00416/USCOURTS-almd-3_16-cv-00416-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

PAMELA SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:16-cv-416-WKW

)

CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this case was referred to the undersigned United States 

Magistrate Judge for review and submission of a report with recommended findings of fact and 

conclusions of law (Doc. 10, entered 12/1/16). The Magistrate Judge recommends this case be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16, filed 11/8/16) be 

GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND 

This complaint was filed by the plaintiff, Pamela Smith on June 6, 2016. See Doc. 1. On 

September 2, 2016, counsel for the plaintiff filed their motion to withdraw. See Doc. 12. On 

September 28, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the motion to withdraw. The Court advised the 

Plaintiff of her option to obtain new counsel or proceed pro se if she wished to continue this 

lawsuit. Plaintiff indicated she wished to continue with the lawsuit and intended to proceed pro 

se. The Court informed Plaintiff she would be held to the same rules and deadlines as someone 

represented by counsel. The Court also orally directed Plaintiff to provide appropriate contact 

information to the Court and opposing counsel. The Court then followed up with a written order 

on October 12, 2016. See Doc. 15. The Court specifically cautioned the plaintiff that failure to 

Case 3:16-cv-00416-WKW-TFM Document 20 Filed 12/28/16 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

comply would result in the Court treating the failure as an abandonment and failure to prosecute 

her claims. Id. 

On November 8, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based upon the failure of the 

plaintiff to comply with the Court’s requirements. See Doc. 16. Plaintiff did not contact 

defendant to provide updated contact information. Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter dated October 

28, 2016 to Plaintiff’s last known addresses in order to conduct a discovery conference as required 

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). See Doc. 16, Ex. A. Defendant did not receive any response from 

Plaintiff and on November 8, 2016 filed the instant motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

On that same date, the Court entered a show cause order requiring the Plaintiff to respond 

on or before November 28, 2016. See Doc. 17. No response was filed and no further filings have 

been received from the Plaintiff. 

II. JURISDICTION

Smith asserts claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) as she 

brings claims under 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq (Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act). The 

parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue and there are adequate allegations to support 

both. 

III. DISCUSSION

The Court entered an oral and written order directing Plaintiff to update the Court and 

defense counsel as to her proper address. Further, she was required to conduct a Rule 26(f) 

conference with the defendant and failed to do so. Plaintiff had been previously warned that her 

pro se status did not excuse her from compliance with the federal rules of civil procedure and 

orders of this Court. The Court entered a show cause order regarding Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss to which Plaintiff failed to respond.

Case 3:16-cv-00416-WKW-TFM Document 20 Filed 12/28/16 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

In short, the Plaintiff has done nothing in furtherance of her case since her last action in this 

case on September 28, 2016. There have been no responses to the Court’s orders and the Court 

adequately warned Plaintiff of the consequences of not responding. Therefore, the Court 

concludes that this case is due to be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case and 

Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed without prejudice for the failure of the plaintiff to 

prosecute this action and defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) be GRANTED.

Additionally, it is ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before January 18, 2017. Any objections filed must specifically identify 

the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, 

conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are 

advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not 

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the 

report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest 

injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 

667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, 

en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed 

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).

Case 3:16-cv-00416-WKW-TFM Document 20 Filed 12/28/16 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

DONE this 28th day of December, 2016.

/s/ Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-00416-WKW-TFM Document 20 Filed 12/28/16 Page 4 of 4