Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_15-cv-00092/USCOURTS-alsd-2_15-cv-00092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000rt Job Discrimination/Retaliation

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

VONTELLA JOHNSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0092-CG-C

FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, INC., :

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Vontella Johnson filed a pro se sexual harassment complaint against the 

defendant in this Court on February 19, 2015. (Doc. 1.) Because of what has transpired 

in this action following the filing of the complaint, it is necessary that the undersigned 

enter this report and recommendation, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), that 

the Court dismiss this action based upon the failure of plaintiff (and her attorney1) to 

prosecute this action and comply with the Court’s order dated June 10, 2015 (Doc. 18).

As aforesaid, plaintiff successfully filed her complaint in this Court on February 

19, 2015 (Doc. 1) and, upon her payment of the filing fee on March 23, 2015 (Doc. 6), 

Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. was served with summons and a copy of the complaint (see 

Docs. 7 & 8). The defendant answered the complaint on April 27, 2015. (Doc. 9.) One 

day later, on April 28, 2015, the Preliminary Scheduling Order was issued in this case 

(Doc. 12) and specifically provided that the parties were to meet and file their Rule 26(f) 

 1 Eric Tavaris Hutchins, Esquire, filed his notice of appearance as counsel of record 

for Ms. Johnson on June 13, 2015. (Doc. 19 (“COMES NOW Eric Tavaris Hutchins, Esq. who 

hereby gives notice that he represents Vontella Johnson in the above captioned matter. Any and 

all communications regarding this matter must be done through undersigned counsel.” 

(emphasis supplied)).)

Case 2:15-cv-00092-CG-C Document 22 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 6
2

report not later than June 8, 2015 (id. at ¶ 1 (“The parties, including pro se parties, are 

ORDERED to meet and file a report pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) as soon as practicable 

but not later than June 8, 2015.”)). It is at this point in time that this case found itself 

going off course.

On June 8, 2015, the date the parties were ordered to file their joint Rule 26(f) 

report (see Doc. 12), the defendant filed a motion for leave to file a unilateral Rule 26(f) 

report (Doc. 17). The undersigned granted the defendant’s motion, set this matter for a 

Rule 16(b) scheduling conference, ordered Ms. Johnson and Mr. Hutchins to appear at 

the scheduling conference,2 and informed both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Hutchins of the 

possible consequence of their failure to appear. (Doc. 18.) 

In light of the fact that neither the plaintiff or the attorney who now 

“arguably” represents her (compare Doc. 17, at 2 (summary of defense 

counsel’s contacts with the pro se plaintiff from May 4, 2015 through May 

21, 2015 reveals that plaintiff told defense counsel that she did not want to 

participate in the conference because she was attempting to find a lawyer 

to represent her) with Doc. 17, Exhibit A (May 28, 2015 email from Eric 

Tavaris Hutchins, Esquire to Christina Meddin, Esquire, containing the 

statement that he “look[ed] forward to working with [Meddin] on this 

case.”)) did not participate in a complete Rule 26(f) conference with 

counsel for the defendant (see Doc. 17, Exhibit B, at 1 (“I wanted to send 

one final reminder on the attached Rule 26(f) Report. It has been my 

understanding since you first contacted me on May 27, 2015 that you are 

representing Vontella Johnson in her lawsuit against Foster Farms, and 

that you planned to enter a Notice of Appearance in the case. For that 

reason, we scheduled the Rule 26(f) conference for Monday, June 1, 2015 

at 1 PM CT. I called you at that time, and we discussed a few of the items 

outlined in the attached report. However, before we had finished the call, 

you told me you had to go, and would call me back in 10 minutes. I never 

did hear back from you, and so I drafted a proposed Report (attached) and 

sent the email below to you on June 2, 2015. . . .” (emphasis supplied))), 

this cause shall come on for a Rule 16(b) scheduling conference before the 

undersigned on June 25, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3A, United 

States Courthouse, Mobile, Alabama. The Court expects the appearance of 

 2 The undersigned carefully explained that the conference would be cancelled if 

Mr. Hutchins filed his notice of appearance as counsel of record for Ms. Johnson and the parties 

filed their joint Rule 26(f) report not later than June 22, 2015. (Doc. 18, at 2.)

Case 2:15-cv-00092-CG-C Document 22 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 6
3

both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Hutchins at the Rule 16(b) scheduling 

conference on June 25, 2015 and the undersigned will cancel this 

conference only upon Mr. Hutchins’ appearance as counsel of record for 

Ms. Johnson and the filing of a joint Rule 26(f) report not later than June 

22, 2015. 

. . .

The failure of Ms. Johnson and/or Mr. Hutchins to appear before 

the undersigned on June 25, 2015—unless Mr. Hutchins files his notice of 

appearance and the parties file a joint Rule 26(f) report not later than June 

22, 2015—may result in the undersigned’s entry of a report and 

recommendation that this action be dismissed based upon the plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute this action and obey the orders of this Court.

(Id. at 1-2 & 2 (footnote omitted).) 

While it became apparent during the conference on June 25, 2015, at which 

neither Ms. Johnson nor Mr. Hutchins appeared, that Ms. Johnson never received a 

copy of the foregoing order, that is, Document 18, there can be no dispute but that Mr. 

Hutchins received a copy of the Court’s order. Mr. Hutchins’ receipt of the Court’s 

order is established not only by the filing of his notice of appearance as counsel of 

record for Ms. Johnson on June 13, 2015 (Doc. 19) but, as well, by defense counsel’s 

references to the Court’s order in emails sent to plaintiff’s attorney on June 21 and 22, 

2015 (see Doc. 21, Attached Email String). Christina Meddin sent Hutchins the following 

email on June 21, 2015:

In its June 10, 2015 order in the above referenced matter, the Court 

ordered that we file a joint rule 26(f) report on or before June 22 to avoid 

having to appear for a scheduling conference on June 25. I wanted to 

follow up one last time to see whether you would be interested in 

finishing our rule 26(f) conference and filing a joint report. In that regard, 

please let me know whether you have time tomorrow to discuss.

(Id., June 21, 2015 Email from Meddin to Hutchins.) Although Meddin received no 

response from Hutchins to her June 21, 2015 email inquiry, Meddin called Hutchins on 

June 22, 2015 and was able to speak with him about the undersigned’s order and the 

Rule 26(f) report. (Id., June 24, 2015 Email from Meddin to Mack Binion.) “He answered, 

Case 2:15-cv-00092-CG-C Document 22 Filed 06/26/15 Page 3 of 6
4

and said that he was fine with the unilateral report we filed. I explained to him that 

there were portions that needed to be filled in by him. I told him I would send him the 

draft report, highlighting the places where he needed to fill in information . . . .” (Id.) 

On June 22, 2015, at 11:37 a.m., Meddin sent the following email to Hutchins: 

As we discussed, attached is a draft joint report. The places where you are 

required to insert information are highlighted. Please complete your 

portion and file today so that we can comply with the Court’s order. Let 

me know if you have any questions.

(Id., June 22, 2015 Email from Meddin to Hutchins.) 

Although the undersigned fully expected the parties to file a joint Rule 26(f) 

report on or before June 22, 2015—following the filing of Hutchins’ notice of appearance 

on June 13, 2015—in order to obviate the need for a Rule 16(b) scheduling conference 

(see Doc. 18), this eventuality did not come to pass because of Mr. Hutchins’ failure to 

complete certain sections of the report requiring the direct input of plaintiff and filing 

same with the Court (see Doc. 21, June 24, 2015 Email from Meddin to Binion (“I never 

heard anything back from either email. I sent these to the address listed on PACER, as 

well as the address he gave me in our initial phone call.”)). Thus, in accordance with the 

contents of the June 10, 2015 order, Mr. Hutchins and Ms. Johnson were to appear in the 

undersigned’s courtroom on June 25, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. (Doc. 18.) Neither Mr. Hutchins 

nor Ms. Johnson appeared but Mack Binion, Esquire, did appear for the defendant. The 

undersigned waited for some twenty-five (25) minutes before taking the bench and 

ultimately informed counsel for Foster Poultry Farm, Inc. that the recommendation 

would be made that this matter be dismissed without prejudice due to the failure of 

plaintiff and her attorney to prosecute this action and obey the Court’s order of June 10, 

2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00092-CG-C Document 22 Filed 06/26/15 Page 4 of 6
5

An action may be dismissed if the petitioner fails to prosecute it or if he fails to 

comply with any court order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 

U.S. 626, 630-631, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (holding district courts 

have the power to sua sponte dismiss a cause of action for failure to prosecute); World 

Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456 (11th Cir. 

1995) (“‘A district court has authority under Federal Rule[] of Civil Procedure 41(b) to 

dismiss actions for failure to comply with local rules.’”).

In this case, plaintiff and her attorney failed to appear for the Rule 16(b) 

scheduling conference on June 25, 2015, and Mr. Hutchins failed to take all actions 

required of him (that is, completing certain portions of the draft Rule 26(f) report sent to 

him by defense counsel and filing same with the Court) to obviate the necessity of the 

Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (See Doc. 18.) Therefore, it is recommended that the 

Court DISMISS Johnson’s complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) due to her failure, 

and the failure of her attorney, to prosecute this action by obeying this Court’s lawful 

order dated June 10, 2015. If plaintiff’s counsel can offer a valid reason why this action 

should not be dismissed, he can certainly bring that reason to the Court’s attention 

when, and if, he files his objections to this report and recommendation.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in 

it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 

72(b); S.D.ALA. L.R. 72.4. The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, 

“[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations 

contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 

Case 2:15-cv-00092-CG-C Document 22 Filed 06/26/15 Page 5 of 6
6

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based 

on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time 

period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence 

of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if 

necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection 

must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state 

the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not 

specific.

DONE this the 26th day of June, 2015.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00092-CG-C Document 22 Filed 06/26/15 Page 6 of 6