Opinion
1:22-cv-21583-KMM
10-07-2022
BRAXTON BELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LAUREN F. LOUIS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiffs Braxton Bell, Shawnee Bell, and the Margaret Bell Handfort MD Estate Trust (the “Trust Plaintiff”), all of whom are proceeding pro se, bring this action against the following Defendants: the State of Florida; attorney Johnathan Ian Meisels; Judge Vivianne Del Rio; the law firm Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC; and Reverse Mortgage Funding LLC. (ECF No. 1). The matter has been referred to the undersigned by the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United States District Judge, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law regarding all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters including discovery, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters, except for any motion for relief affecting the district court's scheduling order. (ECF No. 6). Having reviewed the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth below.
I. DISCUSSION
On September 8, 2022, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 18) observing that (i) the pro se Trust Plaintiff had failed to retain counsel by the deadline set by the Court, (ii) the Complaint is facially deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) because only Plaintiff Braxton Bell had signed the Complaint, and (iii) Plaintiffs had failed to serve the State of Florida and Judge Vivianne Del Rio with process by the deadline to do so under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Consequently, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to respond as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs shall show cause why all claims brought by Plaintiff Margaret Bell Handfort MD Estate Trust should not be dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff Margaret Bell Handfort MD Estate Trust terminated from this action for failure to comply with Court orders (ECF No. 9).
(2) Plaintiffs shall show cause why the Complaint (ECF No. 1) should not be stricken as facially deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a).
(3) Plaintiffs shall show cause why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice all claims in the Complaint against the State of Florida and Judge Vivianne Del Rio, and dismiss those defendants from this action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).(ECF No. 18).
Plaintiffs' response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, and any amendment to the Complaint, were due on or before September 22, 2022. (Id. at 3). Plaintiffs were warned that “[f]ailure to respond and failure to amend the Complaint to correct the deficiencies set forth above shall result in a recommendation to the district judge that this Cause be dismissed without prejudice in its entirety for failure to comply with Court orders and/or failure to remedy the deficiencies identified above.” (Id.). However, review of the record reveals that, to date, Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause, or otherwise amend the Complaint to correct the deficiencies identified above. Accordingly, the Court may dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to comply with Court orders. See Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order.”); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
II. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice in its entirety for failure to comply with Court orders.
A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of anything in this recommendation and shall constitute a waiver of a party's “right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep't Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.