Opinion
CV424-077
06-20-2024
MICHAEL ANTONIO HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAVANNAH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court previously denied pro se plaintiff Michael Antonio Howard's request to pursue this case in forma pauperis and directed him to remit the required filing fee by June 5, 2024. Doc. 9. He has failed to comply with that instruction. See generally docket. He filed a “response” to the Court's Order on May 24, 2024. Doc. 10. In that document he indicated that he made inquiries, from whom it is not clear, about the process for paying the filing fee by money order. Id. at 1. However, he has not taken any further action or moved to extend his deadline to pay the filing fee. Since he has failed to obey the Court's Order and failed to prosecute this case, it is DISMISSED.
A district court retains the inherent power to police its docket and to enforce its orders. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dept., 205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint may be dismissed either for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with an order of the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Additionally, this Court's Local Rules provide that the Court may dismiss an action for want of prosecution when a party has “willful[ly] disobe[yed] . . . any order of the Court” or for “[a]ny other failure to prosecute a civil action with reasonable promptness.” S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 41.1(b), (c). Moreover, the Court's Local Rules provide explicitly that failure to timely remit the filing fee will result in dismissal. S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 4.2(2). Accordingly, Howard's Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to obey a court order and the Local Rules. Doc. 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED.