Opinion
Civil Action 00-0684-CR-C
March 12, 2001
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this § 1983 action. This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2 (c)(4) for appropriate action, and is now before the Court for plaintiffs failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's order (Doc. 11).
The Court's order dated January 24, 2001 (Doc. 11), ordered plaintiff to inform the Court by February 23, 2001, if he wanted to proceed with the prosecution of this action, and converted defendants' Special Report (Doc. 10) to a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to respond would be considered by the Court as an abandonment of the prosecution of this action by him and that his action would be dismissed. Plaintiffs copy of the Court's order has not been returned to the Court, nor has the Court, to date, heard from plaintiff since this order was entered.
Due to plaintiffs failure to respond to the Court's order of January 24, 2001 (Doc. 11), the undersigned concludes that plaintiff has abandoned the prosecution of his action. Upon consideration of the alternatives available to the Court and of the time and the resources expended by defendants in defending this action, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Blunt v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 856 F.2d 192 (6th Cir. 1988) (unpublished); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1983); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir.) (finding that the court's inherent power to manage actions before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).
The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to the Report and Recommendation.