Opinion
2:21-CV-512-RAH-SMD [WO]
08-26-2022
HAROLD L. DORTCH, #298 361, Plaintiff, v. MRS. HARRIS OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA/BUSINESS OFFICE AT BULLOCK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHEN M. DOYLE, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Harold Dortch, an inmate incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on August 2, 2021. Plaintiff filed a prison transaction report considered to contain a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but this document did not contain the necessary inmate account information from the facility's account clerk. The Court, therefore, did not have the information necessary to determine whether Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and entered an Order on August 10, 2021, requiring Plaintiff to provide the Court with this information by August 24, 2021. Doc. 4. The Court informed Plaintiff that failure to comply with August 10 Order would result in a Recommendation this case be dismissed. Doc. 4 at 2. Plaintiff has failed to submit his inmate account information as directed and the time for doing so has long expired.
Because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order of the Court, the undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.). The authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). This authority empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. at 630-31; Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”). “The sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.” Id.
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
It is ORDERED that by September 9, 2022, the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. The parties must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the Court. This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waive the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11TH Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).