Opinion
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:18-CV-03181-ODE-AJB
11-06-2018
MARTIAL FOTSE, Plaintiff, v. LENDINGHOME FUNDING CORPORATION and LENDINGHOME MARKETPLACE, LLC, Defendants.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, submitted an affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") and his initial complaint on July 2, 2018. [Doc. 1]. The undersigned reviewed the application and found that, it could was "unable to determine whether Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding or give security therefore" and ordered him to wither pay the filing fee or file an amended IFP application and a new complaint within 14 days. [Doc. 2]. The Order also expressly advised Plaintiff that "[f]ailure to timely comply with this Order will result in a recommendation to the District Judge that this case be dismissed." [Id. at 12].
More than 14 days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with the Order or otherwise responded. (See Dkt.).
The Local Rules authorize the Court to dismiss a civil case for want of prosecution if the plaintiff, after notice, fails to obey a lawful order. LR 41.3(A)(2), NDGa. As noted above, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's Order, nor has he made any attempt to explain his failure to comply or to request an extension of time. (See Dkt.).
A district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order or the federal rules. Skillern v. Ga. Dep't of Corrs. Com'r, 379 Fed. Appx. 859, 860 (11 Cir. May 17, 2011). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); LR 41.3(A)(2), NDGa; see also McIntosh v. Gauthier, 182 Fed. Appx. 884, 886 (11 Cir. May 17, 2006) (stating that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order, with the federal rules or with the local rules); Sussman v. Salem, Saxon, and Nielson, 154 F.R.D. 294, 300 (M.D. Fla.1994) (dismissal appropriate for failure to obey a direct order of the court). "Dismissal is generally not an abuse of discretion when the litigant has been forewarned." Gratton v. Great Am. Commc'ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11 Cir. 1999); see also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11 Cir. 1989) (same). Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate "to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Court." Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11 Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).
Plaintiff now has failed to comply with a lawful Order of the Court, despite having passed since the deadline to comply with the Order.
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that, pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2), Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and DIRECTS the Clerk then to terminate the referral to the undersigned.
IT IS SO ORDERED, RECOMMENDED, and DIRECTED, this the 6 day of November, 2018.
/s/ _________
ALAN J. BAVERMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE