From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dorsey v. Biden

United States District Court, Northern District of Florida
Jul 1, 2021
4:21cv199-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla. Jul. 1, 2021)

Opinion

4:21cv199-MW-MAF

07-01-2021

GLENN C. DORSEY, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES JOE BIDEN, Defendant.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this case by submitting a civil rights complaint, ECF No. 1, and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. Plaintiff's motion was granted and his complaint was reviewed. Finding it insufficient as filed, Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint that was not a “shotgun” pleading, and which complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was informed that he would be provided just “one chance to remedy the deficiencies explained” in that Order. Plaintiff's deadline to comply was June 21, 2021. Id.

As of this date, Plaintiff has not complied. No. amended complaint has been received, despite the warning to Plaintiff that a recommendation would be made to dismiss this case if he did not comply by the deadline provided. It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.

“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff “fails to prosecute or” otherwise comply with a court order. See Ciosek v. Ashley, No. 3:13cv147/RV/CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs . . . . ” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Because Plaintiff did not comply with a Court Order and has failed to prosecute this case, dismissal is now appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other parties. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.


Summaries of

Dorsey v. Biden

United States District Court, Northern District of Florida
Jul 1, 2021
4:21cv199-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla. Jul. 1, 2021)
Case details for

Dorsey v. Biden

Case Details

Full title:GLENN C. DORSEY, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES JOE BIDEN…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of Florida

Date published: Jul 1, 2021

Citations

4:21cv199-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla. Jul. 1, 2021)