BROWN v PUBLIX SUPERMARKET 1427

Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
TIMOTHY E. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF
PUBLIX SUPERMARKET 1427,
Defendant.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 25, 2026, Defendant filed a notice of Plaintiff’s
noncompliance with this Court’s prior Order, ECF No. 23, which granted
Defendant’s motion to compel, ECF No. 20. Defendant requested
sanctions be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve full and complete
interrogatory answers, respond to Defendant’s First Request for
Production, and submit his Rule 26 initial disclosures. ECF No. 31.
Defendant complains that Plaintiff has “refused to provide basic
discovery” and has failed to “meaningfully respond to Defendant’s repeated
attempts to confer.” 	Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s actions have “prevent[ed]
Defendant from obtaining the information necessary to evaluate Plaintiff’s
Case 4:26-cv-00044-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 07/15/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
claims, prepare defenses, and complete discovery by the Court’s deadline.”
Id. at 3. Thus, Defendant requests that this case be dismissed with
prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court Orders
and participate in discovery.
Prior to ruling on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff was afforded an
opportunity to file a response. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff was required to do so
no later than July 13, 2026, and he was warned that this Court might “grant
Defendant’s motion ‘by default’ if Plaintiff ‘does not file a memorandum as
required by’” Local Rule 7.1(H). 	Id. 	As of this date, Plaintiff has not
complied. Plaintiff has filed nothing in response either to Defendant’s
motion, ECF No. 31, or this Court’s Order, ECF No. 32.
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) authorizes the Court to impose
sanctions on a party who “fails to obey an order to provide or permit
discovery.” Seven options for sanctions are available to the Court. Those
include: “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in
evidence;” “striking pleadings in whole or in part;” “staying proceedings until
the order is obeyed;” or “dismissing the action in whole or in part.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(v). Plaintiff has been warned of those sanctions in
Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00044-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 07/15/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
multiple Court Orders. ECF Nos. 19, 26, 30. Those warnings did not gain
Plaintiff’s attention or action.
This Court finds that if Plaintiff was prevented from supporting his
claims, that sanction still leaves Defendant at a disadvantage and without
discovery. Striking pleadings does nothing to move this case forward, and
staying the case will not be beneficial to the cause of justice. Indeed, as
Defendant has argued - staying the case would “reward noncompliance
and further delay Defendant’s ability to defend the case.” ECF No. 31 at
11. 	A case should move forward toward resolution, but if a party is
unwilling to participate in doing so, the case should not remain pending.
Doing so is a burden both on this Court’s docket and on the Defendant who
is unable to move forward.
Multiple opportunities have already been provided to the Plaintiff to
move this case forward and comply with the rules concerning discovery.
Indeed, from the start, Plaintiff has refused to participate in good faith as he
refused to confer with opposing counsel in creating a discovery plan.
Defendant filed a unilateral Rule 26(f) Report, ECF No. 17, because
Plaintiff would not confer as required by the Initial Scheduling Order, ECF
No. 10. Plaintiff was warned in the Final Scheduling Order that he was
Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00044-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 07/15/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
“required to participate in discovery” and warned of sanctions for his failure
to do so, including dismissal of this case. ECF No. 19 at 2.
Just a month later, Defendant filed its motion to compel. ECF No. 20.
Plaintiff’s response to that motion was insufficient. ECF No. 21. He did not
explain why he was unable to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests
and, more importantly, why he refused to respond to Defendant’s multiple
inquiries. Thus, the motion to compel was granted and Plaintiff directed to
provide the outstanding discovery. 	ECF No. 23. Plaintiff has still not
complied. 	See ECF No. 26. Moreover, a small fee award 1 was provided to
Defendant, ECF No. 30, but it appears that Plaintiff has failed to pay that
award as well. In short, multiple warnings have been given to Plaintiff
which did not prompt his compliance. Multiple Court Orders were issued
and lesser sanctions imposed, with no effect. Plaintiff has ignored Court
Orders and his responsibilities in prosecuting his own case.
Even pro se litigants must comply with orders and the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. “If a pro se litigant ignores a discovery order, he is and
should be subject to sanctions like any other litigant.” Moon v. Newsome,
1 Defendant requested an award of $1,776.40, ECF No. 25-1, but considering
Plaintiff’s pro se and in forma pauperis status, the award was reduced to $439,
representing only one hour of lead counsel’s time. ECF No. 30 at 6-7.
Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00044-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 07/15/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (quoted in Watts v. Ford Motor Co., 648
F. App’x 970, 973 (11th Cir. 2016)). At this point, it does not appear that
any other sanction could be imposed by the Court which would bring
Plaintiff into compliance or provide Defendant with outstanding discovery to
which it is entitled. Dismissal is appropriate.
“Because dismissal with prejudice is a drastic remedy, a court will
impose it as a last resort ‘only when: (1) a party engages in a clear pattern
of delay or willful contempt (contumacious conduct); and (2) the district
court specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not suffice.’” Betty K
Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoted in Watts, 648 F. App’x at 973).
This case has reached last resort as Plaintiff has refused to even respond
to a Court Order or motion for sanctions.
In addition to the sanctions which are available under Rule 37(b),
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss
an action with prejudice ‘[i]f the plaintiff fails ... to comply with these rules or
a court order.’” Watts, 648 F. App’x at 973. That Rule also provides a
basis to dismiss this case.
Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00044-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 07/15/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion for
sanctions, ECF No. 31, be GRANTED and this case be DISMISSED with
prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to participate in good faith in
discovery and to comply with Orders from this Court.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 15, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other
parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:26cv44-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00044-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 07/15/26 Page 6 of 6