Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. South Carolina State Ports Authority

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

August 13, 2014

Gail R. Jackson, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina State Ports Authority, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge.

This action was filed by the Plaintiff, who at the time of filing was represented by counsel, asserting claims for race discrimination (First Cause of Action), retaliation (Second Cause of Action), gender discrimination (Third Cause of Action), race discrimination and retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Fourth Cause of Action), and race, sex and gender discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1991[1] (Fifth Cause of Action). Plaintiff, a former employee of the Defendant, is no longer represented by counsel, and is proceeding pro se. See Court Docket No. 33.

By Order filed March 4, 2014, Plaintiff's Second and Third Causes of Action were dismissed. Additionally, Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action, to the extent those Causes of Action include claims for retaliation and/or gender discrimination, were also dismissed. See Court Docket No. 42. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order entered by the Court, the discovery deadline in this case was July 11, 2014.

On July 2, 2014, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Defendant asserts in its motion that Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant's discovery requests, in violation of the Court's Order of June 9, 2014, and the Rules of this Court. As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on July 7, 2014, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for her to file an adequate response. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to file a properly supported response, the Defendant's motion may be granted, thereby ending her case. However, notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions as set forth in the Court's Roseboro order, the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion, or to contact the Court in any way.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. V. Lopez, 669 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. 1982).[2] Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Davis v. Williams , 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.

The Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at her last known address. 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 response to the motion to dismiss, 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]


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.