CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE and ORDER
Now pending before the court is the defendant's motion to dismiss or in the alternative, motion to compel (doc. # 29) filed on September 28, 2015. The court heard oral argument on the motions on October 19, 2015. As stated in open court, and for good cause it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the motion to dismiss (doc. # 29) be DENIED. It is further
ORDERED as follows:
1. That the motion to compel (doc. # 29) be and is hereby DENIED as moot. The motion to compel be and is hereby terminated.
2. All discovery as authorized by Rules 26-37, and 45, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, shall be completed on or before November 30, 2015. Notwithstanding any rule to the contrary, all requests for discovery and all responses to discovery requests, except copies of depositions, shall be filed with the court.
3. Any dispositive motions such as motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment and any evidentiary materials in support of the motions shall be filed on or before December 30, 2015.
THE PLAINTIFF IS REMINDED that the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE require that the plaintiff mail to the lawyer for the defendant, a true copy of anything which the plaintiff sends to or files with the court. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case or other penalties. Anything filed should contain a certificate of service which specifically states that the pleading or other document has been sent to the lawyer for the defendant.
The Plaintiff is also reminded that he is required to comply with the discovery obligations of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the Local Rules of the Middle District of Alabama, and this court's orders. This includes the parties' obligation to communicate with one another in good faith with respect to discovery matters. See FED.R.CIV.P. 26(c); FED.R.CIV.P. 37(a)(1).
Finally, it is
ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or before November 3, 2015. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11 CIR. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Done this 20th day of October, 2015.
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE