Dr. Monica A. Price v. Durham Public Schools — Jury Trial Motion Dismissed Without Prejudice
Summary
Judge David A. Bragdon of the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina adopted a Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed Dr. Monica A. Price's Motion Request for a Jury Trial without prejudice on April 24, 2026. Dr. Price, proceeding pro se, filed an objection that focused on discovery disputes rather than the jury trial motion itself, and acknowledged her discovery requests were not in alignment with applicable deadlines. The Court conducted a de novo review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) and ordered dismissal of the action.
“The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Opinion and Recommendation and Plaintiff's Objection.”
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court MDNC Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 8 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation from March 20, 2026, which recommended dismissal of Dr. Price's Motion Request for a Jury Trial under the four-factor test from Malbon v. Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co. Dr. Price's objection, filed April 6, 2026, did not address the jury trial motion but instead raised discovery issues the Court had already ruled on in a March 20, 2026 Text Order. The Court noted that discovery deadlines had been set for February 2, 2026, and Dr. Price's interrogatories were served too late to allow the required 30-day response period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2), while her document requests were served over a month after the discovery deadline. Dr. Price acknowledged the timing failures in her own objection. The action is dismissed without prejudice, with a judgment to be entered contemporaneously with the order.
Affected parties in similar civil litigation should note the procedural consequences: a jury trial motion that fails to address the substance of the request may be dismissed under the Malbon factors, and discovery deadlines under Local Rule 26.1(c) are strictly enforced — parties who serve interrogatories or document requests after the discovery deadline may be denied any response from opposing counsel.
Archived snapshot
Apr 25, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
DR. MONICA A. PRICE v. DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS
District Court, M.D. North Carolina
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 1:23-cv-01102
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DR. MONICA A. PRICE,
Plaintiff,
v. 1:23-CV-1102-DAB-LPA
DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the Memorandum Opinion and
Recommendation filed on March 20, 2026. 3/20/26 Memorandum Opinion and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (D.E. 45). Plaintiff made a
Motion Request for a Jury Trial. 1/28/26 Motion Request for Jury Trial (D.E. 37).
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motion be dismissed under the four
factors outlined in Malbon v. Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 636 F.2d 936, 940,
n.11 (4th Cir. 1980). D.E. 45, at 3.
Dr. Price filed an objection, which she placed in the mail on April 6, 2026.
4/6/2026 Objection to Recommended Ruling (D.E. 49, at 4). Defendant did not
respond. The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Opinion and
Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Objection. After conducting a de novo review
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and construing Dr. Price’s pro-se filing liberally,
the Court adopts the recommendation.
Dr. Price’s objection does not address her Motion for a jury trial. Instead, it
focuses on her request that Defendant provide discovery. This issue has been
addressed by the Court in its March 20, 2026, Text Order, which held:
… [On] 06/27/2025, the Court (per the issuing Magistrate Judge)
adopted Joint Rule 26(f) Report, which established 02/02/2026 as the
discovery deadline. Moreover, via Text Order dated 02/21/2026, the
Court (per the issuing Magistrate Judge) made clear that the two items
of relief granted therein to Defendant in connection with the Motion to
Extend Discovery Deadline (i.e., additional time to receive Plaintiff’s
responses to Defendant's timely served discovery requests and to
conduct Plaintiff’s deposition by 04/30/2026) did “not extend the
discovery period for any purpose other than the two purposes specified
[therein].” Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 26.1(c), Plaintiff had to
serve any interrogatories or document requests in time to allow
Defendant the allotted time to respond within the discovery period. In
[Plaintiff’s] Motion [to Compel], however, Plaintiff had asked the Court
to compel Defendant to respond to interrogatories she allegedly served
on 01/12/2026 and 01/13/2026, as well as document requests she
allegedly served on 03/12/2026. Because Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33(b)(2) allotted Defendant 30 days to respond to
interrogatories, Plaintiff’s alleged service of interrogatories occurred
too late. And her service of document requests (more than a month after
the discovery deadline) obviously also occurred too late. As such, the
Court would not compel any response from Defendant.
In her objection, Dr. Price acknowledges that her discovery requests were not
“in alignment with the original timeframe” and did not comply with applicable
deadlines. D.E. 49, at 1. This admission, together with the Court’s prior ruling,
provides no basis for revisiting or disturbing the established discovery deadlines.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation,
3/20/26 Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation, is adopted and this action is
dismissed without prejudice.
A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with
this Order.
This the 24th day of April, 2026.
/s/ David A. Bragdon
United States District Judge
Related changes
Get daily alerts for US District Court MDNC Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from MDNC.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court MDNC Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.