EISSA v. CITY OF SAVANNAH

G. SMITH, Magistrate Judge

On June 2, 2008, plaintiff was ordered to respond to defendant Jay Self's discovery requests within seven days. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff has made no effort to comply with that order. Nor has plaintiff made any response to defendant Self's request that the Court impose the sanction of dismissal. (Doc. 25.) As it appears that plaintiff has abandoned her case, it should be DISMISSED.

Rule 37(b)(2) authorizes a district court to impose sanctions against a party who violates an order compelling discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2); Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997). Permissible sanctions include dismissal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). In addition, a plaintiff's disregard of a court order warrants a dismissal of her action under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 41.1 permits dismissal of an action for want of prosecution when a party has "willful[ly] disobe[yed] . . . any order of the Court" or for "[a]ny other failure to prosecute a civil action with reasonable promptness." Finally, a district court retains the inherent power to police its docket and to enforce its orders. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 2005 F. App'x 802, 802-3 (11th Cir. 2006).

Plaintiff has clearly disregarded an order of this Court. In addition, she has not responded to any of the defendants' motions or filings since the case commenced. No lesser sanction short of dismissal appears appropriate given plaintiff's apparent lack of interest in prosecuting her case and her refusal to comply with this Court's order. Mingo, 864 F.2d at 102; Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1534 (11th Cir. 1985). Consequently, this case should be DISMISSED.