WOODS v. BARNES, No. 2:2021cv00364 - Document 31 (D. Me. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER ON RECOMMENDED DECISION adopting 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION; denying without prejudice 26 Motion for Sanctions. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (JPL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WOODS v. BARNES Doc. 31 Case 2:21-cv-00364-GZS Document 31 Filed 04/03/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 102 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JAMAURA WOODS, Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS BARNIES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Docket no. 2:21-cv-00364-GZS ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON RECOMMENDED DECISION On February 24, 2023, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court his Recommended Decision on Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 29). Defendant filed his Objection (ECF No. 30) on March 10, 2023. The Court has made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision and concurs with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in that order. 1 As a result, the Court determines that no further proceedings are necessary with respect to this Recommended Decision. 1 Defendant’s assertion that the Recommended Decision is “factually inaccurate” to the extent that it found that Plaintiff “did not receive the Court’s orders” (dated 11/23/22 & 12/7/22) is itself inaccurate. The docket readily establishes that these mailed orders were returned to the Court, and Defendant has not provided any evidence that the orders were otherwise received by Plaintiff. See ECF Nos. 19, 24 & 28. While Defendant suggests that the emailing of various filings to the pro se Plaintiff at a gmail address, as reflected in Defendant’s certificates of service, proves Plaintiff had some actual notice of these orders, there is no evidence that Plaintiff received these emails and, in any event, receipt of such emails is not the same as receipt of the actual orders from the Court. In the absence of evidence that Plaintiff has deliberately failed to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge that the sanction of dismissal is not warranted at this time. See Lawes v. CSA Architects & Engineers LLP, 963 F.3d 72, 91 (1st Cir. 2020) (explaining that dismissal as a sanction “runs counter to our strong policy favoring the disposition of cases on the merits” (cleaned up)); Vazquez-Rijos v. Anhang, 654 F.3d 122, 127 (1st Cir. 2011) (explaining that dismissal is “one of the most draconian sanctions” that is reserved for “extreme misconduct”). Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00364-GZS Document 31 Filed 04/03/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 103 It is therefore ORDERED that: 1. The Recommended Decision (ECF No. 29) is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions 2 (ECF No. 26) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Plaintiff Jamaura Woods shall serve complete answers under oath to the Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories, dated September 6, 2022 (ECF No. 26-1), and a complete response to Defendant’s First Request for Production of Documents, dated September 6, 2022 (ECF No. 26-2), no later than April 25, 2023. Plaintiff’s response shall include the production of any responsive documents. 4. Also, no later than April 25, 2023, Plaintiff shall confirm in writing to the Court and Defendant her current address and her intent to proceed with this matter. 5. Plaintiff is hereby NOTIFIED AND WARNED that a failure to comply with the Court’s April 25, 2023 deadline may result in sanctions, including the dismissal of this case. As of April 26, 2023, Defendant is authorized to renew his request for dismissal of this action, along with any other previously requested sanctions, through the filing of an affidavit describing any non-compliance with this Order by Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. /s/ George Z. Singal United States District Judge Dated this 3rd day of April, 2023. 2 The Court notes that the Recommended Decision at times refers to the pending Motion for Sanctions as “Plaintiff’s” rather than Defendant’s Motion. See Rec. Dec. (ECF No. 29), PageID #s 88 & 91. In this Order, the Court corrects this apparent scrivener’s error. 2
]]>
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.
