Opinion
3:23-cv-935-WWB-MCR
01-08-2024
LAWRENCE GLENN, Plaintiff, v. JACKSONVILLE SHERIFF'S OFFICE/ T.K. WATERS, JUDGE STEVE FAHLGREN, JUDGE LONDON KITE, CLERK JODY PHILLIPS, Defendants.
THE HON. WENDY W. BERGER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of [this Report and Recommendation], 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. A party's failure to serve and file specific objections to the proposed findings and recommendations alters the scope of review by the District Judge and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, including waiver of the right to challenge anything to which no specific objection was made. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
MONTE C. RICHARDSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Court's December 15, 2023 Order (Doc. 4).
On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint and unnotarized Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”). (Docs. 1 & 2.) On November 3, 2023, the undersigned entered an Order, denying without prejudice Plaintiff's Application and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and a notarized application or pay the filing fee on or before November 27, 2023. (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff was warned that: “Failure to comply with [the] Order may result in a recommendation to the District Judge that this action be dismissed without further notice for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and/or want of prosecution.” (Id. at 12-13 (emphasis omitted).) The Order was mailed to Plaintiff on or before November 6, 2023.
When Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's Order, on December 15, 2023, the undersigned entered an Order, directing Plaintiff to show cause in writing, on or before January 2, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's Order, failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, lack of jurisdiction, and/or want of prosecution under Local Rule 3.10. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff was warned that: “Failure to respond to [the] Order by the deadline will likely result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.” (Id. at 2.) The Court's December 15, 2023 Order was mailed to Plaintiff that day.
To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's Orders (Docs. 3 & 4), and has not sought an extension of time to comply. Specifically, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's Orders, has not filed an amended complaint and an amended application, and has not paid the filing fee. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's Orders, failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, lack of jurisdiction, and want of prosecution under Local Rule 3.10.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and the Clerk of Court be directed to terminate any pending motions and close the file.
DONE AND ENTERED