United States District Court, D. Maryland
LATONYA S. FRANKLIN, Plaintiff,
TRI-COUNTY COUNCIL FOR THE LOWER EASTERN SHORE OF MARYLAND, Defendant
L. Hollander United States District Judge
March 18, 2015, Latonya Franklin, who is self-represented,
filed an employment discrimination action against Tri-County
Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. ECF 1. She
also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2),
which I granted. ECF 3.
plaintiff alleged wrongful termination under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§
2000(e), et seq., based on race, retaliation, and
harassment. ECF 1. She sought injunctive relief as well as
monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Id. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state
a claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF 6.
I granted that motion, without prejudice, and afforded
plaintiff twenty-one days in which to file an amended
complaint. ECF 9; ECF 10. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. ECF 11.
defendant moved to dismiss, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). ECF 12. I denied the motion as it pertained to the
wrongful termination claim, but granted it in all other
respects. ECF 16; ECF 17. After defendant answered (ECF 18),
I issued a scheduling order. ECF 19. In accordance with the
Scheduling Order, the parties were instructed to complete
discovery by July 15, 2016. Defendant repeatedly attempted to
contact plaintiff for the purpose of proceeding with
discovery, without success. See ECF 20; ECF 24; ECF
March 15, 2016, defendant served plaintiff with
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents,
seeking discovery with respect to plaintiff's employment
history and finances; the witnesses and documents she
intended to use at trial; the basis for her wrongful
termination claim; and her damages. See ECF 24-2.
Plaintiff was also informed that she was required to respond
within 30 days. Id. However, she did not respond.
ECF 24, ¶ 3. On April 19, 2016, five days after the
deadline to respond to the discovery, defendant wrote to
plaintiff, asking for her discovery responses. ECF 24-3.
Defendant sent another letter to plaintiff on April 28, 2016,
warning that if she did not respond by May 6, 2016, defendant
would “be forced to seek relief from the Court.”
ECF 24-4. Again, plaintiff did not respond. ECF 24,
¶¶ 4, 5, 8.
on May 12, 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) (the “Motion”), seeking
dismissal of the case, with prejudice, due to plaintiff's
failure to provide discovery. ECF 24 (the
“Motion”). In the Motion, defense counsel
certified that good faith efforts were made to confer with
plaintiff and to obtain her responses to the discovery
requests, without Court intervention. ECF 24 at 3 &
¶ 8. The Clerk's Office mailed plaintiff a warning
letter on May 13, 2016, informing her that the Motion could
lead to dismissal of her case. ECF 26. Nevertheless,
plaintiff did not respond to the Motion.
referred the Motion (ECF 24) to Magistrate Judge Stephanie
Gallagher on May 12, 2016. ECF 25. Judge Gallagher issued her
Report and Recommendations on July 8, 2016. ECF 27. In her
Report and Recommendations, Judge Gallagher reviewed the
legal standard applicable to a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(d), as well as the factors governing the sanction of
dismissal, including as to pro se litigants. See ECF
27 at 5-6. Judge Gallagher proceeded to analyze the
applicable factors. Id. at 7-10. I completely agree
with Judge Gallagher's analysis of the applicable
factors, adopt them as my own, and incorporate that analysis
on the analysis of the applicable factors, Judge Gallagher
recommended that I order plaintiff to respond to the pending
discovery requests within 30 days and, further, that if
plaintiff failed to comply, it would then be appropriate to
dismiss plaintiff's case, with prejudice, for the reasons
she stated. See ECF 27 at 7-11.
on July 28, 2016, I issued a Memorandum (ECF 28) and Order
(ECF 29) requiring plaintiff to respond, by September 1,
2016, to defendant's Interrogatories and Requests for
letter of September 13, 2016 (ECF 31), defense counsel
advised the Court that plaintiff has not provided any
discovery responses. Indeed, defense counsel has not received
any communication from plaintiff. Id.
on the foregoing, and for all the reasons set forth by Judge
Gallagher in her Report and Recommendations (ECF 27),
incorporated herein, I shall grant defendant's motion to
dismiss, with prejudice, pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 37(d).