United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Kenneth M. Hoyt United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on the defendant's, U.S. Steel
Oil Well Services, LLC (the “defendant”), motion
to dismiss and supplemental motion to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 6
& 11). The plaintiff, Badre Belfakir (the
“plaintiff”), has failed to file a response and
the time for doing so has long expired. Thus, pursuant to
this Court's local rules, the plaintiff's
“[f]ailure to respond will be taken as a representation
of no opposition.” S.D. Tex L.R. 7.4. After having
carefully considered the motions, the pleadings, and the
applicable law, the Court determines that the defendant's
motion to dismiss should be GRANTED.
October 29, 2015, the plaintiff, proceeding pro se,
filed the instant action against the defendant alleging
claims of race, national origin, and religious discrimination
and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et.
seq. (“Title VII”), in the 113th Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas. On January 11, 2016,
the defendant timely removed the matter to this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441(a) and
1441(b). (See Dkt. No. 1).
plaintiff's dilatory, nonresponsive conduct has persisted
since this case's inception. First, the plaintiff failed
to confer in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and
participate in filing a joint discovery/case management plan
as required by this Court's Order for Conference and
Disclosure of Interested Parties despite the Order's
express warning that pro se litigants are
“bound by the requirements imposed upon counsel”
and that a “[f]ailure to comply with the order may
result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action and
assessment of fees and costs.” (Dkt. No. 2.).
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court, following a
telephonic scheduling conference held on April 5, 2016,
entered an Order staying this case for 60 days to permit the
plaintiff additional time to secure counsel and further
directed the parties to exchange Rule 26 disclosures
following the automatic reactivation of this case to the
Court's docket on June 6, 2016. (See Dkt. No.
15, 2016, the defendant served its initial disclosures on the
plaintiff. On August 18, 2016, however, after having failed
to receive the plaintiff's initial disclosures, the
defendant sent the plaintiff a letter reminding him of his
obligation to serve initial disclosures, providing him with a
copy of the Court's Scheduling Order entered in this case
as well as a second copy of its initial disclosures
previously served upon him, along with a copy of the relevant
provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 governing initial disclosures.
(See Dkt. No. 6, Ex. C). In its letter, the
defendant also advised the plaintiff of its intent to seek
Court intervention for his failure to comply with discovery
Please be advised that if you fail to submit your Initial
Disclosures within two weeks of the date of this letter - by
Thursday, September 1, 2016 - then we will seek the
Court's intervention to obtain a dismissal for failing to
comply with the Court's order and for not participating
in the preparation of your lawsuit for trial.
(Id.). In addition to serving the aforementioned
documents by certified and regular U.S. mail, the
defendant's attorney e-mailed a copy of the same to the
plaintiff on August 18, 2016. (Dkt. No. 11, Galagaza Decl at
¶ 3 & Ex. E). In the transmittal e-mail attached to
the documents, the defendant's attorney stated as
Please read the attached letter very carefully. If you have
any questions and have hired a lawyer, please let me know the
name and phone number of your lawyer. If you have not found a
lawyer, then please call me if you have any questions.
I want to impress upon you that if you do not do as requested
in the attached letter by September 2, 2016 and as has been
ordered by Judge Hoyt in his order about how this case is to
proceed (as copy of which is also attached), U.S. Steel will
file a motion with the court to dismiss your lawsuit. You are
already more than two months late in complying with the
requirement of sending us your initial disclosures. We cannot
wait any longer.
date, the plaintiff has still failed to serve his initial
disclosures upon the defendant. Moreover, despite having been
served on December 23, 2016, with interrogatories, requests
for production, requests for admission and a notice of intent
to take his deposition, the plaintiff has failed to provide
any responses and/or objections to any of the written
discovery served upon him. Further, on January 30, 2017, the
plaintiff appeared for his scheduled deposition, acknowledged
having received the deposition notice, but, nevertheless,
requested that the deposition be rescheduled for another day.
(Id.). When the defendant's attorney refused to
reschedule the deposition, however, the plaintiff provided
little to no responses to the questions posed during the
course of the deposition so as to ultimately force the
deposition to be suspended. (Id.).
depositive motion deadline in this case has long passed and
this case is currently ...