United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, 2025

Sullivan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Palmetto GBA

Sullivan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Palmetto GBA
United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia · Decided February 26, 2025
Sullivan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Palmetto GBA

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION TIFFANY SULLIVAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 125-022 ) BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD PALMETTO ) GBA, ) ) Defendant. ) _________ O R D E R _________ Plaintiff filed the above-captioned employment discrimination case on January 31, 2025, (doc. no. 1), and she is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). When she filed the case, a Rule 26 Instruction Order was issued to Plaintiff, which explained “the parties” must confer and submit the report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) within a certain time period determined by service of the complaint or appearance of any Defendant in the case. (See doc. no. 3.) Moreover, because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, her complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). The Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint on February 14, 2025, but service has not been directed on any Defendant. (See doc. no. 6.) Thus, no Defendant has appeared in the case.

Even though no Defendant has been served or appeared, Plaintiff filed a Rule 26(f) Report which only she signed. As the filing requires participation of Plaintiff and Defendant in conference, followed by submission of a jointly signed report, the Report filed on February 24th, signed only by Plaintiff and submitted even before the Court has determined whether Defendant should be served, is a nullity. The Court DIRECTS the CLERK to terminate the motion associated with the procedurally improper Report. (Doc. no. 10.)

The Court reminds Plaintiff she must familiarize herself with the rules of this Court because all litigants, including those proceeding pro se, must comply. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[O]nce a pro se litigant is in court, [s]he is subject to the relevant law and rules of court.”). Information for litigants proceeding without an attorney may be found on the Court’s website at www.gasd.uscourts.gov, under the tab “Filing Without an Attorney.”

SO ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia.

□ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.