From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mickles v. Alfa Ins. Co.

United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama
Jul 5, 2022
Civ. ACT. 1:22-cv-129-TFM-MU (S.D. Ala. Jul. 5, 2022)

Opinion

Civ. ACT. 1:22-cv-129-TFM-MU

07-05-2022

TERRELL MICKLES, Plaintiff, v. ALFA INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TERRY F. MOORER, DISTRICT JUDGE

On May 18, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation which recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with the court's orders. See Doc. 4. No objections were filed.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order or the federal rules. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc'ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). Further, such a dismissal may be done on motion of the defendant or sua sponte as an inherent power of the court. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). “[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Vil v. Perimeter Mortg. Funding Corp., 715 Fed.Appx. 912, 915 (quoting Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)). “[E]ven a non-lawyer should realize the peril to [his] case, when [he] . . . ignores numerous notices” and fails to comply with court orders. Anthony v. Marion Cty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1169 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Moon, 863 F.2d at 837 (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.). Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its “inherent power” to “dismiss [Plaintiff's claims] sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1337 (describing the judicial power to dismiss sua sponte for failure to comply with court orders).

Since the filing of his complaint on March 18, 2022, there has been no additional action by the Plaintiff despite being ordered to pay the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. 3. Further, Plaintiff was also ordered to file an Amended Complaint no later than May 2, 2022. Id. Plaintiff filed neither documents required by the Court.

Accordingly, after due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey the Court's orders.

DONE and ORDERED


Summaries of

Mickles v. Alfa Ins. Co.

United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama
Jul 5, 2022
Civ. ACT. 1:22-cv-129-TFM-MU (S.D. Ala. Jul. 5, 2022)
Case details for

Mickles v. Alfa Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:TERRELL MICKLES, Plaintiff, v. ALFA INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama

Date published: Jul 5, 2022

Citations

Civ. ACT. 1:22-cv-129-TFM-MU (S.D. Ala. Jul. 5, 2022)