Opinion
3:24-cv-594-MMH-PDB
07-30-2024
C. John Fantel, Plaintiff, v. Department Homeland Security etc., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA D. BARKSDALE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Using the “Complaint for a Civil Case” form and proceeding without a lawyer, the plaintiff, a litigant familiar with federal court,[*]sues the Department of Homeland Security, the State of Rhode Island, the South Kingstown Police, the Boston Police Department, Clifford Fantel, Sr., and Donna Fantel, seeking relief for alleged events occurring in Arizona, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Doc. 1. He also applies to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Doc. 2.
The undersigned ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue or both by July 12, 2024. Doc. 3 at 2. The undersigned explained the law, directed him to resources for litigants without lawyers, and warned him that his failure to timely respond to the order and show cause may result in dismissal. Doc. 3 at 2-3. Since that order, he has filed nothing. The order was emailed to him at an email address he provided because he provided no other address.
A court may dismiss a case for failure to comply with an order. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc'ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate “only in extreme circumstances”; there must be a clear record of delay or willful conduct that lesser sanctions would be insufficient to correct. Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoted authority omitted).
Because the plaintiff has failed to comply with the order requiring him to show cause but has not demonstrated a clear record of delay or other willful conduct, the undersigned recommends dismissing the action without prejudice and directing the clerk to terminate the pending application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, Doc. 2, and close the file.
“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of [a] recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). “A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Id. “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A [district judge] shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “A party failing to object to ... findings or recommendations ... in a report and recommendation ... waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions[.]” 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
[*] See Fantel v. Handley et al., No. 3:24-cv-545 (M.D. Fla.); Christ v. R.I. etc., No. 3:24-cv-273 (M.D. Fla.); Fantel, Jr. v. R.I., No. 1:24-cv-220 (D.R.I.); Fantel, Jr. v. R.I. etc., No. 1:24-cv-213 (D.R.I.); Fantel Jr. v. WARM Ctr. etc., No. 1:24-cv-162 (D.R.I.); Fantel Jr. v. R.I., No. 1:24-cv-120 (D. R.I.); Fantel Jr. v. FBI etc., No. 1:24-cv-118 (D.R.I.); Fantel Jr. v. Town of South Kingstown etc., No. 1:24-cv-81 (D.R.I.); Fantel Jr. v. Town of S. Kingstown etc., No. 1:24-cv-52 (D.R.I.); Fantel v. Az. etc., No. 2:23-cv-2147 (D. Ariz); Fantel v. Cnty. of Maricopa, No. 2:23-cv-2116 (D. Ariz.); Fantel v. White et al., No. 2:23-cv-1725 (D. Ariz.); Fantel v. Az., No. 2:23-cv-363 (D. Ariz.); Fantel v. City of Mesa, No. 2:23-cv-362 (D. Ariz.); Fantel v. Unknown Party et al., No. 2:23-cv-349 (D. Ariz.); Fantel v. Skinner et al., No. 2:23-cv-347 (D. Ariz.); Fantel v. Brutinel et al., No. 2:23-cv-227 (D. Ariz.); Fantel v. Az., 2:22-cv-1904 (D. Ariz.); Fantel v. Az. etc., No. 2:22-cv-1846 (D. Ariz.).