Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00666/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00666-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 29:2601 Family and Medical Leave Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH SCOTT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 2:15-cv-666-WKW-GMB

)

SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP., )

)

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. 11. Pending before the court is Defendant

Southern Management Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (Doc. 18). 

Having reviewed the motion, and for good cause, it is the recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge that Defendant’s motion be GRANTED, and that the dismissal be 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Kenneth Scott (“Scott”) filed his complaint on September 16, 2016,

alleging claims for “retaliation and interference under the Family Medical Leave Act.”

Doc. 1. At the time Scott’s complaint was filed, he was represented by counsel. 

However, on May 19, 2016, Scott’s counsel moved to withdraw, citing Scott’s 

unresponsiveness and lack of cooperation, which prevented counsel from conducting 

discovery essential to litigating Scott’s claims. Doc. 13. 

Case 2:15-cv-00666-WKW-GMB Document 20 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 5
2

On June 14, 2016, the court held an ex parte hearing on the motion to withdraw. 

Scott’s counsel was allowed to withdraw and confirmed to the court that the address for 

Scott on the court’s file was correct. Docs. 14 & 16. The court then scheduled a status 

and scheduling conference, specifically ordering Scott to attend and warning him that a 

failure to appear would be considered an abandonment of his claims. Doc. 16. 

Notwithstanding this warning, Scott failed to appear at the June 28, 2016 status 

conference. Doc. 17.

Given Scott’s failure to appear and his failure to participate in discovery, 

Defendant moved to dismiss Scott’s complaint with prejudice. Doc. 18. The court 

ordered Scott to show cause why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. Doc. 19. In that order, the court cautioned Scott again that his failure to 

respond could result in the dismissal of his claims. The court further ordered Scott to 

provide a current address, as some of the court’s previous orders had been returned with 

the notation “Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” Doc. 

19. Scott did not respond to the court’s show cause order. 

II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss an 

action “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order 

of court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). As the Supreme Court recognized in Link v. Wabash 

Railroad Company, “[t]he power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent 

undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars 

Case 2:15-cv-00666-WKW-GMB Document 20 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 5
3

of the District Courts.” 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962). Nonetheless, the “severe sanction 

of a dismissal or default judgment is appropriate only as a last resort, when less drastic 

sanctions would not ensure compliance with the court’s orders.” Malautea v. Suzuki 

Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Navarro v. Cohan, 856 

F.2d 141, 142 (11th Cir. 1988)).

Defendant requests dismissal of Scott’s claims with prejudice, but the record now 

before the court does not warrant such a severe sanction. Dismissal of a case with 

prejudice under Rule 41(b) is “a sanction of last resort, applicable only in extreme 

circumstances.” McIntosh v. Gauthier, 182 F. App’x 884, 886–87 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Such a dismissal is appropriate only where there is a clear record of willful contempt and 

an implicit or explicit finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice. Id. The court does 

not find a clear record of willful contempt here. There is no dispute that Scott failed to 

respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, that he failed to appear at a June 28, 2016 

status and scheduling conference, and that he failed to respond to the court’s July 8, 2016 

show cause order. However, the record shows that—even though Scott’s prior counsel 

confirmed the accuracy of his address on file with the court during a hearing on June 14, 

2016—Scott did not receive notice of the court’s order setting the June 28, 2016

conference or the court’s July 8, 2016 show cause order. Given that these orders have 

been returned as undeliverable, the court is unable to conclude that Scott engaged in the 

type of willful disregard of orders that would justify dismissing his pro se complaint with 

prejudice.

Case 2:15-cv-00666-WKW-GMB Document 20 Filed 08/16/16 Page 3 of 5
4

This being said, the court does find that dismissing Scott’s claims without 

prejudice is appropriate because he has failed to prosecute his case despite multiple 

opportunities to do so. According to Scott’s former attorneys, Scott would not 

communicate with them—despite their repeated efforts—nor would he cooperate with 

discovery requests. Indeed, Defendant still has not received complete responses to its 

discovery requests, which were first served in April 2016. Scott also has made no effort 

to update his address with the court so that he can receive orders, nor has he otherwise 

inquired into the status of his lawsuit with the court or with Defendant. Finally, Scott 

failed to attend the June 28, 2016 status conference, which Defendant did attend, and he 

failed to respond to the court’s July 8, 2016 show cause order. In short, Scott has 

demonstrated a total unwillingness to prosecute his claims, and the court therefore 

concludes that Defendant’s motion should be granted and that Scott’s claims should be 

dismissed without prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that

Defendant Southern Management Corporation’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) be

GRANTED, and that Plaintiff Kenneth Scott’s claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to 

this recommendation on or before August 30, 2016. Any objections filed must 

specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to which the 

Case 2:15-cv-00666-WKW-GMB Document 20 Filed 08/16/16 Page 4 of 5
5

party is objecting. 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, 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); see Stein v. Reynolds Secs., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).

DONE this 16th day of August, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00666-WKW-GMB Document 20 Filed 08/16/16 Page 5 of 5