United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court sua sponte and upon Defendant
Credit Protection Association's Motion to Dismiss Case
with Prejudice and for Sanctions (Doc. # 39), filed on
December 19, 2016. Plaintiff Rayon Rhodes has not complied
with the Court's December 20, 2016, Order (Doc. # 44),
nor has Rhodes responded to Defendant's Motion. For the
reasons below, this action is dismissed with prejudice.
Court has previously recounted Rhodes's history of
noncompliance with the orders of this Court. (Doc. ## 21, 38,
44). As such, the Court provides a mere summary for purposes
of this Order.
to the commencement of the instant action, Rhodes filed an
identical lawsuit against Defendant Credit Protection
Association. Rhodes v. Credit Prot. Ass'n, No.
8:15-cv-2184-T-33TBM. That action was dismissed for failure
to prosecute. Id. at (Doc. # 14) (order dated
October 28, 2015, dismissing case).
two months later, Rhodes, rather than moving to reopen the
earlier-filed action, instituted this action against
Defendant, which was transferred to the undersigned from the
Honorable James D. Whittemore, United States District Judge.
(Doc. ## 1, 11). The continual noncompliance that plagued the
first-filed action also thwarted the Court's attempts to
secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this
action. To be sure, Rhodes:
(1) failed to timely file a notice of mediation as required
by the Court's Scheduling Order (Doc. # 15);
(2) failed to file a notice of mediation within the extension
of time granted sua sponte by the Court (Doc. # 16);
(3) failed to respond to the Court's August 25, 2016,
Order to show cause (Doc. # 18);
(4) failed to file a notice of mediation after the case was
reopened (Doc. # 24);
(5) failed to appear for Court-ordered mediation as required
under the Court's Scheduling Order (Doc. # 38);
(6) submitted a questionable explanation as to why he did not
appear in person for mediation (Doc. ## 40, 44);
(7) failed to provide the supplemental information as
ordered, even after being granted an extension of time to do