Cheryl Rease v. MHM Correctional Services, Inc., et al, No. 13-15740 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-15740 Date Filed: 06/03/2014 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-15740 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-03513-RLV CHERYL REASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., WILLIAM BRICKHOUSE, Ph.D., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (June 3, 2014) Before PRYOR, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-15740 Date Filed: 06/03/2014 Page: 2 of 4 Cheryl Rease appeals the dismissal of her amended complaint against her former employer, MHM Correctional Services, Inc., and her former supervisor, Dr. William Brickhouse (collectively MHM ). Rease challenges the dismissal of her complaint, an order that compelled her to respond to requests by MHM for discovery, and an award of $15, 565.47 to MHM. We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Rease s amended complaint. Dismissal of a complaint is an appropriate sanction when a plaintiff's recalcitrance is due to wilfulness, bad faith or fault, Phipps v. Blakeney, 8 F.3d 788, 790 (11th Cir. 1993), and the record supports the finding that Rease deliberately and defiantly refused to comply with orders of the district court. On October 17, 2012, a magistrate judge granted the motion of MHM to compel discovery based on evidence that, for several months, Rease had submitted partial responses to discovery requests and refused to provide further discovery materials, despite obtaining extensions to do so. When Rease failed to comply with the October 17 order or to contact MHM, it moved to dismiss Rease s complaint. On May 15, 2013, the district court denied the motion to dismiss and imposed the lesser sanctions that Rease comply with the October 17 order within ten days and pay more than $9,000 in attorney s fees to MHM. Rease again failed to comply, and Rease acknowledged some of her misconduct in response to the renewed 2 Case: 13-15740 Date Filed: 06/03/2014 Page: 3 of 4 motion of MHM to dismiss Rease s complaint. The district court reasonably determined that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for Rease s misconduct. The district court also did not abuse its discretion by granting the motion of MHM to compel Rease to comply discovery requests. Rease challenges the finding that MHM satisfied its duty to confer before filing its motion to compel, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), but MHM attached to its motion a letter and three emails warning that it would file a motion to compel if Rease s attorney failed to comply with discovery requests. Rease even concedes that MHM attempt[ed] to talk to her attorney. The district court did not clearly err in finding that MHM attempted to confer with Rease before filing the motion to compel. Rease also waived her challenge to the award of $15,565.47 to MHM. After MHM filed its renewed motion to dismiss, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the motion and award $15, 565.47 to MHM for the attorney s fees and expenses related to its first motion to dismiss. A few days later, MHM petitioned for an award of $10, 346.97 for attorney s fees and expenses associated with their renewed motion to dismiss. Rease responded that the district court would be duplicat[ing] the award if it were to give $10,346.47 to MHM after sanction[ing] counsel $15,0000 already. Because Rease never contested the award of $15, 565.47 to MHM, we will not consider the propriety of the award 3 Case: 13-15740 Date Filed: 06/03/2014 Page: 4 of 4 for the first time on appeal. See Access Now v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). We AFFIRM the dismissal of Rease s amended complaint. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
