Opinion
C. A. 3:24-758-JFA-PJG
04-12-2024
Ronald Brunson, Plaintiff, v. United States; Steven Patterson; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Ronald Brunson, a self-represented litigant, brings this civil action. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
On March 1, 2024, the court issued an order finding that this case is subject to the prefiling injunction issued against Plaintiff in C. A. No. 3:14-2540-JFA. (ECF No. 10.) The order directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this case and informed Plaintiff that this case would be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to do so. The order warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the order within the time permitted would subject his case to dismissal for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with an order of the court under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee and the deadline to do so has passed.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied. (ECF No. 2.)
Consequently, this matter should be summarily dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order. “The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). A court may also sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. at 630. Moreover, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize that courts must have the authority to control litigation before them, and this authority includes the power to order dismissal of an action for failure to comply with court orders.” Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)).
Here, Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order justifies dismissal of this action because the court's March 1 order warned Plaintiff in bold lettering that this case would be dismissed if he failed to follow the court's instructions. See Ballard, 882 F.2d at 96; see also Lutfi v. Training Etc, Inc., 787 Fed.Appx. 190, 191 (4th Cir. 2019) (“Where a litigant has ignored an express warning that noncompliance with a court order will result in dismissal, the district court should dismiss the case.”). Because the court recommends dismissal of this matter prior to authorizing the issuance of the summons and service of process, the matter should be dismissed without prejudice. See Lutfi, 787 Fed.Appx. at 191 (finding the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing a pro se litigant's complaint without prejudice where the litigant failed to comply with the court's order, noting the litigant could refile the action).
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel are denied. (ECF Nos. 6, 13, 14.) There is no right to appointed counsel in civil cases and Plaintiff does not identify any exceptional circumstance that would warrant the appointment of counsel in this case. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989); Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975).