United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DIJFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S.
Anand's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“Final R&R”) recommending granting Defendant
Dish Network, LLC's (“Defendant”) Motion for
Sanctions (the “Motion”)  and dismissing the
action with prejudice for want of prosecution.No objections to
the Final R&R were filed.
February 17, 2017, Defendant removed the Cobb County action
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia . On July 14, 2017, with the expiration of the
discovery period approaching, Defendant wrote a letter to the
Court describing Plaintiff's failure to timely respond to
discovery requests or participate in a joint conference call
with the Magistrate Judge as required by a the Court's
Scheduling Order . On July 21, 2017, the parties
participated in a teleconference regarding the matter. During
the conference call, Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged
that he failed to produce timely responses to the
Defendant's discovery requests and agreed to supplement
Plaintiff's discovery responses within ten days. ( at
3). The Magistrate Judge extended discovery through September
1, 2017. (Id.).
August 3, 2017, Defendant filed the Motion, stating that
Plaintiff failed to provide required discovery responses.
Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff “up to and
including dismissing the action with prejudice.”
([16.1] at 7). Plaintiff did not file a response to the
Motion. On August 23, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an
Order  (the “August 23rd Order”) stating
that, notwithstanding Plaintiff's failure to respond to
the Motion for Sanctions, “[t]he question that the
Court will allow Plaintiff one more chance to address, in
person, is whether the harsh relief of dismissal is
warranted.” ( at 2). The Magistrate Judge ordered
the parties to appear for a hearing on August 30, 2017, and
advised Plaintiff that he would be required to show cause why
the action should not be dismissed on the basis of discovery
violations. (Id.). Plaintiff's counsel failed to
appear at the hearing.
August 31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued his Final
R&R, recommending granting Defendant's Motion for
Sanctions and dismissing the action with prejudice. No
objections to the Final R&R were filed.
conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or
modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681
F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With
respect to those findings and recommendations to which
objections have not been asserted, the Court must conduct a
plain error review of the record. United States v.
Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Where, as here, Plaintiff
does not file objections to the Final R&R, the Court
reviews it for plain error.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
dismissal may be an appropriate sanction where a party fails
to comply with a court order regarding discovery.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v); see also
N.D.Ga. L.R. 41.3(A)(2) (“The court may, with or
without notice to the parties, dismiss a civil case for want
of prosecution if . . . [a] plaintiff . . . shall, after
notice, . . . fail or refuse to obey a lawful order of the
court in the case.”). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure also provides that “[i]f the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or
a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action . .
. . Unless the dismissal or order states otherwise, a
dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates as an
adjudication on the merits.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
Magistrate Judge found that “[b]y failing to
participate in discovery by providing complete and timely
responses to discovery requests, Plaintiff has prevented
Defendant from obtaining the discovery that it is entitled to
. . . and  has prevented this case from proceeding to
trial.” ( at 5). The Magistrate Judge noted that
“[o]rdinarily the Court would not recommend the
imposition of the harsh sanction of dismissal for a single
discovery violation, ” but, “[u]nder the
circumstances, . . . Plaintiff has demonstrated that a less
severe sanction would not be sufficient to compel the
Plaintiff to comply with his obligations under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to produce timely discovery
responses.” (Id at 6). The Court finds no
plain error in the Magistrate Judge's determination.
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Final Report ...