United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
SRA INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al. PLAINTIFFS
MERITOR, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
environmental action is before the Court on the
defendants' motion to dismiss Linda Singleton's
claims with prejudice. Doc. #352.
1, 2016, the plaintiffs in this action filed an amended
complaint against Meritor, Inc., Rockwell Automation, Inc.,
The Boeing Company, and Textron, Inc. Doc. #46. The amended
complaint asserts various claims against the defendants
arising from pollution allegedly caused by the operation of a
manufacturing plant in Grenada County, Mississippi.
Id. at ¶ 1.
October 12, 2017, the attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel for Linda Singleton, one of the
plaintiffs, based on Singleton's refusal “to
participate in the prosecution of this matter, to communicate
with … counsel, … or to answer discovery
propounded to her.” Doc. #268 at 1. Approximately two
weeks later, on October 25, 2017, the defendants filed a
motion to compel discovery from Singleton. Doc. #295. The
motion asserted that the defendants served two sets of
interrogatories and requests for documents on Singleton (one
on September 27, 2016, and the other on February 22, 2017),
and that Singleton did not respond to either set.
Id. at 2.
November 6, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M.
Virden issued an order which granted the motion to compel and
denied the motion to withdraw. Doc. #331. The order directed
Singleton to respond to the discovery requests within
fourteen days and warned “that … failure to do
so will likely result in a report and recommendation that her
case be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to
prosecute.” Id. at 2.
did not respond to the discovery requests and the defendants,
on November 20, 2017, filed a motion to dismiss Singleton
“for lack of prosecution, for … refusal to
participate in discovery, and for … failure to comply
with the Court's orders.” Doc. #352 at 1. On
November 28, 2017, counsel for the plaintiffs responded in
opposition to the motion. Doc. #363. The response states:
Plaintiffs' counsel has provided to Ms. Singleton
… notice of this Motion to Dismiss, and requested that
she contact any representative of Plaintiffs' legal team
to discuss moving forward with her claim or to provide
instruction that her claim be abandoned. Ms. Singleton has
Given these circumstances, the undersigned is not in a
position to confess the Defendants' instant motion, but
also is unable to make a good-faith argument in opposition.
Id. at 2.
Rule of Civil Procedure 37 grants a district court authority
to dismiss an action for, among other things, a
plaintiff's failure to obey a discovery order or serve
answers to interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b), (d). ...