Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00142/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00142-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

 By order entered October 4, 2005, the claims against defendant David N. Chandler were

dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 26). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARILYN BULLOCH, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO 05-0142-CG-D

)

KENNETH J. FRANK, M.D.,1)

)

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant Kenneth J. Frank, M.D., to dismiss

plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to participate in discovery. (Doc. 27). Defendant sets forth that plaintiffs

have failed to provide their initial disclosures and that defendant made a good faith effort to obtain the

disclosures prior to seeking court intervention. Defendant moves the court to dismiss the case with

prejudice for plaintiffs failure to participate in discovery and prosecute their case. Plaintiffs were

ordered to respond to the motion to dismiss on or before November 4, 2005 (Doc. 28). To date,

plaintiffs have filed no response. This motion has been referred to the undersigned for report and

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(1) for the Southern

District of Alabama. Upon consideration, and for the reasons stated herein, the undersigned

recommends that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 27) be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED for

failure to prosecute. 

Case 1:05-cv-00142-CG-D Document 29 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 5
2

 Defendant Chandler filed a motion to dismiss and brief on July 11, 2005. (Docs. 16, 17). 

Plaintiffs were ordered to respond within ten working days. (Doc. 18). Plaintiffs failed to respond and

the District Court, viewing the lack of response as an oversight, extended the deadline to August 12,

2005. (Doc. 21). On August 12, 2005, plaintiffs requested a five day extension and the District Court

extended the deadline until August 17, 2005. (Docs. 22, 23). Plaintiffs again failed to respond and the

District Court granted Chandler’s motion to dismiss with prejudice on October 4, 2005. (Doc. 26). 

2

Procedural History

On March 7, 2005, plaintiffs’ complaint was removed to the United States District Court (Doc.

1), on March 23, 2005, defendant Frank filed an answer (Doc. 4) and on March 24, 2005, a

preliminary scheduling order was entered setting May 9, 2005 as the deadline for filing the report of

parties’ planning meeting. (Doc. 5). 

Plaintiffs and defendant Frank moved the court to extend the deadline on grounds that

defendant David Chandler had not yet been served. (Doc. 7). The motion was granted and the

deadline was extended until June 8, 2005. (Doc. 8). A second joint motion was filed wherein the

parties moved the court to extend the deadline because Chandler’s recently retained counsel would

need additional time to prepare. (Doc. 9). The motion was granted and the deadline extended to June

22, 2005. (Doc. 10). Defendant Chandler filed an unopposed motion to extend the deadline because

his counsel still needed additional time to review the case and prepare for the parties’ planning meeting.

(Doc. 12).2 The motion was granted and the deadline extended to July 8, 2005. (Doc. 13). On July 8,

2005, the report was filed. (Doc. 14). On July 20, 2005, a scheduling conference was held and a Rule

16(b) Scheduling Order was entered wherein the deadline for the initial disclosures was set at August

15, 2005. (Doc. 20). On August 15, 2005, defendant Frank filed a notice of filing his initial

disclosures. (Doc. 24). The docket indicates that plaintiffs have not filed their initial disclosures. 

Case 1:05-cv-00142-CG-D Document 29 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 5
3

Analysis

In the motion to dismiss, defendant states that on August 15, 2005, he served his initial

disclosures on the plaintiffs but did not receive initial disclosures from the plaintiffs. (Doc. 27). 

Defendant states that he wrote plaintiffs’ counsel on September 29, 2005 and requested the initial

disclosures. (Doc. 27, Exhibit 1). Defendant states that a second letter requesting initial disclosures

was sent on October 17, 2005. (Doc. 27, Exhibit 2). Defendant states that the disclosures have not

been received and are now over sixty (60) days past due. 

On October 27, 2005, plaintiffs were ordered to respond on or before November 4, 2005,

and show cause why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. (Doc. 28). Additionally, plaintiffs

were warned that failure to respond by the deadline may be considered by the court as an

abandonment of the prosecution of this action and may result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). 

The exchange of initial disclosures is a basic and integral part of the discovery process coming

just twenty-five days after the entry of the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order in this case. (Doc. 20). By

failing to comply with the Scheduling Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the order of this

court entered October 27, 2005, at this early point, plaintiffs have demonstrated to the court that they

apparently do not wish to move forward with their own litigation. 

Conclusion

Because of plaintiffs’ failure to provide their initial disclosures and failure to comply with this

court’s orders, specifically the order entered October 27, 2005, (Doc. 27), the undersigned concludes

that plaintiffs have abandoned the prosecution of this action. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 1:05-cv-00142-CG-D Document 29 Filed 11/15/05 Page 3 of 5
3

 “Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this

subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction,

for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the

merits.” FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 41(b). 

4

Procedure states that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any

order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant.”

FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 41(b). Accordingly, upon consideration of the alternatives that are available to

the court and in consideration of plaintiffs’ actions, it is recommended that defendant’s motion to

dismiss be GRANTED and that this case be DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b)3 as no other lesser

sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962) (interpreting

Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of

prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454,

1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.

1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1983); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457,

1458 (11th Cir. 1983). 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to this Report and

Recommendation.

DONE this the 14th day of November, 2005. 

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00142-CG-D Document 29 Filed 11/15/05 Page 4 of 5
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within ten days

of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court. Failure to

do so will bar a de novo determinationbythe district judge of anything inthe recommendationand willbar

anattack, onappeal, of the factualfindings ofthe magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis

v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997),

which provides, in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate judge in a dispositive

matter, that is, a matter excepted by28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a “Statement of

Objectionto Magistrate Judge’sRecommendation” within tendays afterbeingservedwith

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is established by order. The

statement of objection shall specify those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made and the basis forthe objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the party’s arguments

that the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original brief submitted to

the magistrate judge, although a copyofthe original brief may be submitted or referred to

and incorporated into the brief in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief in

support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the objection.

Amagistrate judge’srecommendation cannot be appealed to aCourt ofAppeals; only the district

judge’s order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing party may submit a brief opposing

the objection within ten (10) days of being served witha copyofthe statement ofobjection. FED. R. CIV.

P. Rule 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedingstape recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and

FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 72(b), the magistrate judge finds that the tapes and originalrecordsinthis actionare

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay

the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination that transcription is necessary is required

before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

S / KRISTI K. DUBOSE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00142-CG-D Document 29 Filed 11/15/05 Page 5 of 5