BROWN

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TIMOTHY E. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF

PUBLIX SUPERMARKET 1427,

Defendant.

___________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On June 25, 2026, Defendant filed a notice of Plaintiff’s

noncompliance with this Court’s prior Order, ECF No. 23, which granted

Defendant’s motion to compel, ECF No. 20. Defendant requested

sanctions be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve full and complete

interrogatory answers, respond to Defendant’s First Request for

Production, and submit his Rule 26 initial disclosures. ECF No. 31.

Defendant complains that Plaintiff has “refused to provide basic

discovery” and has failed to “meaningfully respond to Defendant’s repeated

attempts to confer.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s actions have “prevent[ed]

Defendant from obtaining the information necessary to evaluate Plaintiff’s

Page 2 of 6

claims, prepare defenses, and complete discovery by the Court’s deadline.”

Id. at 3. Thus, Defendant requests that this case be dismissed with

prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court Orders

and participate in discovery.

Prior to ruling on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff was afforded an

opportunity to file a response. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff was required to do so

no later than July 13, 2026, and he was warned that this Court might “grant

Defendant’s motion ‘by default’ if Plaintiff ‘does not file a memorandum as

required by’” Local Rule 7.1(H). Id. As of this date, Plaintiff has not

complied. Plaintiff has filed nothing in response either to Defendant’s

motion, ECF No. 31, or this Court’s Order, ECF No. 32.

Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) authorizes the Court to impose

sanctions on a party who “fails to obey an order to provide or permit

discovery.” Seven options for sanctions are available to the Court. Those

include: “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing

designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in

evidence;” “striking pleadings in whole or in part;” “staying proceedings until

the order is obeyed;” or “dismissing the action in whole or in part.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(v). Plaintiff has been warned of those sanctions in

Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF

Page 3 of 6

multiple Court Orders. ECF Nos. 19, 26, 30. Those warnings did not gain

Plaintiff’s attention or action.

This Court finds that if Plaintiff was prevented from supporting his

claims, that sanction still leaves Defendant at a disadvantage and without

discovery. Striking pleadings does nothing to move this case forward, and

staying the case will not be beneficial to the cause of justice. Indeed, as

Defendant has argued - staying the case would “reward noncompliance

and further delay Defendant’s ability to defend the case.” ECF No. 31 at

11. A case should move forward toward resolution, but if a party is

unwilling to participate in doing so, the case should not remain pending.

Doing so is a burden both on this Court’s docket and on the Defendant who

is unable to move forward.

Multiple opportunities have already been provided to the Plaintiff to

move this case forward and comply with the rules concerning discovery.

Indeed, from the start, Plaintiff has refused to participate in good faith as he

refused to confer with opposing counsel in creating a discovery plan.

Defendant filed a unilateral Rule 26(f) Report, ECF No. 17, because

Plaintiff would not confer as required by the Initial Scheduling Order, ECF

No. 10. Plaintiff was warned in the Final Scheduling Order that he was

Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF

Page 4 of 6

“required to participate in discovery” and warned of sanctions for his failure

to do so, including dismissal of this case. ECF No. 19 at 2.

Just a month later, Defendant filed its motion to compel. ECF No. 20.

Plaintiff’s response to that motion was insufficient. ECF No. 21. He did not

explain why he was unable to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests

and, more importantly, why he refused to respond to Defendant’s multiple

inquiries. Thus, the motion to compel was granted and Plaintiff directed to

provide the outstanding discovery. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff has still not

complied. See ECF No. 26. Moreover, a small fee award1 was provided to

Defendant, ECF No. 30, but it appears that Plaintiff has failed to pay that

award as well. In short, multiple warnings have been given to Plaintiff

which did not prompt his compliance. Multiple Court Orders were issued

and lesser sanctions imposed, with no effect. Plaintiff has ignored Court

Orders and his responsibilities in prosecuting his own case.

Even pro se litigants must comply with orders and the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. “If a pro se litigant ignores a discovery order, he is and

should be subject to sanctions like any other litigant.” Moon v. Newsome,

1 Defendant requested an award of $1,776.40, ECF No. 25-1, but considering

Plaintiff’s pro se and in forma pauperis status, the award was reduced to $439,

representing only one hour of lead counsel’s time. ECF No. 30 at 6-7.

Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF

Page 5 of 6

863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (quoted in Watts v. Ford Motor Co., 648

F. App’x 970, 973 (11th Cir. 2016)). At this point, it does not appear that

any other sanction could be imposed by the Court which would bring

Plaintiff into compliance or provide Defendant with outstanding discovery to

which it is entitled. Dismissal is appropriate.

“Because dismissal with prejudice is a drastic remedy, a court will

impose it as a last resort ‘only when: (1) a party engages in a clear pattern

of delay or willful contempt (contumacious conduct); and (2) the district

court specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not suffice.’” Betty K

Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2005)

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoted in Watts, 648 F. App’x at 973).

This case has reached last resort as Plaintiff has refused to even respond

to a Court Order or motion for sanctions.

In addition to the sanctions which are available under Rule 37(b),

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss

an action with prejudice ‘[i]f the plaintiff fails ... to comply with these rules or

a court order.’” Watts, 648 F. App’x at 973. That Rule also provides a

basis to dismiss this case.

Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF

Page 6 of 6

RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion for

sanctions, ECF No. 31, be GRANTED and this case be DISMISSED with

prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to participate in good faith in

discovery and to comply with Orders from this Court.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 15, 2026.

S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick

MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this

Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written

objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other

parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections within

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic

docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. If a

party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or

recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this

Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on

appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and

legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF