CATHY ELAINE LOGGINS, Plaintiff, v. COLLECTION SERVICES OF ATHENS, INC., Defendant CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 2:19-CV-291-SCJ-JCF United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Gainesville Division Filed June 02, 2020 Fuller, J. Clay, United States Magistrate Judge FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION *1 On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. (Doc. 1). On March 23, 2020, Defendant filed its answer to the complaint. (Doc. 8). By Order of this Court dated April 24, 2020 (Doc. 12), the parties were ordered to serve the Initial Disclosures, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26 and LR 26.1, NDGa., and file their Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan, as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 16 and 26 and LR 16.2, NDGa., within 14 days. Plaintiff served her initial disclosures on April 14, 2020. (Doc. 13). The docket does not reflect that the defendant served their initial disclosures and the parties did not file the Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan as directed. Therefore, by subsequent Order entered on May 12, 2020 (Doc. 15), the parties were ordered to fully comply with the Court's April 24th Order by serving their initial disclosures and filing the Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan as directed. The parties were advised that failure to obey a lawful Order of the Court could subject them to sanctions, including as to Plaintiff, a recommendation to the District Court that her complaint be dismissed. To date, the parties have failed to comply with the Court's Orders. LR 41.3A(2), NDGa. authorizes dismissal of a civil action for want of prosecution “with or without notice to the parties” when “[a] plaintiff ... fail[s] or refuse[s] to obey a lawful order of the court in the case.: FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) provides that upon motion of a defendant, a complaint may be dismissed “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order....” And “[i]n addition to the authority granted by Rule 41(b), a federal district court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss an action for want of prosecution, which it may exercise on its own motion when necessary to maintain the orderly administration of justice.” Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 610 F.2d 241, 247 (5th Cir. 1980). When the court dismisses an action with prejudiceCwhether on its own motion or on the motion of a defendantChowever, it may do so “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 sanction would not suffice.” Betty K Agencies, LTD v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff in this action has not complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Northern District of Georgia regarding the Preliminary Report and Discovery Schedule. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16 and 26. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to comply with two Orders of this court directing her to make these filings. The undersigned finds that Plaintiff has engaged in “a clear pattern of delay or willful contempt” and, given Plaintiff's failure to respond to respond to the Court's Orders, “that lesser sanctions would not suffice,” Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1337-38. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b), the court's “inherent authority to dismiss an action for want of prosecution ... when necessary to maintain the orderly administration of justice” and LR 41.3A(2), NDGa. for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and for her repeated failure to comply with the rules and Orders of the court, even after she was warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal of her complaint. (See Docs. 12 and 15). The Clerk is directed to terminate the reference of this case. IT IS SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of June, 2020.