Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-1091-WHA [WO]
03-26-2020
LASHAUN WILLIAMS, #196 804, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER BRAFORD, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility filed this action on December 30, 2019, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The motion, however did not include the required documentation from the inmate 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 February 21, 2020, requiring Plaintiff to provide the court with this information on or before March 6, 2020. Doc. 5 at 1. The court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the March 6 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2.
The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the court's February 21, 2020, order. The court, therefore, concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837-838 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that as a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion); Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. Appx. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). 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) (observing that a "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, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the order of the court and to prosecute this action.
It is
ORDERED that on or before April 9, 2020, Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall "waive the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions" except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
Done, this 26th day of March 2020.
/s/ Stephen M. Doyle
STEPHEN M. DOYLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE