Opinion
Case No. 3:01CV7175.
February 7, 2002
ORDER
This is a pro se case that has been removed to this court from the Allen County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas. Pending is defendants' motion to dismiss for noncompliance with discovery requirements. For the reasons that follow, the motion shall be granted.
In a case management order entered following a case management conference on June 18, 2001, the plaintiff was ordered to provide Rule 26 disclosures by July 15, 2001. He did not do so. Defendants sent further discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for production of documents on June 19, 2001. The following day, the defendants sent a request for medical authorizations, which were to be returned by July 15, 2001.
On July 16, 2001, defendants provided their initial Rule 26 disclosures and requested receipt of plaintiff's initial disclosures.
Plaintiff did not respond to either the command in the case management order or defendants' discovery requests. On July 18, 2001 and September 14, 2001, defendants sent reminder requests to the plaintiff. Still he did not respond.
On October 30, 2001, the day before the expiration of the discovery period, as established in the case management order, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to comply with discovery obligations.
The plaintiff did not respond to that motion. On December 27, 2001, he was ordered to do so by January 30, 2002, or have his case dismissed for want of prosecution.
On January 30, 2002, plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss. In the text of his response, he stated that he was in custody from July 14, 2001, through August 22, 2001, and thus unable to comply with his discovery obligations. He claims not to have received defendants' letters of July 16, July 18, and September 14, 2001. He does not contend that the letters were not properly addressed.
Plaintiff also asserts, without specification or supporting documentation, that he "has been subjected to several numerous, fabricated charges made up by the Allen County Sheriff's Office, [so that] his presence has been required in numerous Lima Municipal Court hearings and pre-trials." (Doc. 18 at 4-5).
It is a well settled rule that a letter that is properly addressed and placed in the mail is presumed to be delivered to the addressee in a timely manner. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 430 (1932); Crace v. Kentland-Elkhorn Coal Corp., 109 F.3d 1163, 1166 (6th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff's conclusory statements about not receiving several letters that were properly addressed does not overcome that presumption. Thus, he is presumed to have received the reminder letters sent to him by defendants' counsel.
In any event, his opposition to the motion to dismiss fails adequately to explain why he has never responded this court's original case management order and its requirement that initial disclosures be made by July 15, 2001. Nor has he explained his failure, which must be viewed as deliberate and willful, to seek an extension of the discovery cutoff, as set in that order. Likewise, he has not explained his failure to respond promptly to the defendants' motion to dismiss. Nor has he provided any other response to his discovery obligations than to request an extension of the discovery deadline. He has not, for example, stated that he has taken any steps to fulfill his discovery obligations.
I find and conclude that the plaintiff's failure to comply with his discovery obligations, or otherwise to prosecute his claims diligently, is willful, and properly justifies dismissal of his complaint, with prejudice.
It is, therefore,
ORDERED THAT defendants' motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is granted, with prejudice.
So ordered.