Opinion
3:22-CV-212-WHA-SMD [WO]
07-19-2022
HERNAADIS HARMON, Plaintiff, v. RUSSELL CO. JAIL, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHEN M. DOYLECHIEF, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Hernaadis Harmon, an inmate detained at the Russell County Jail in Phenix City, Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint on April 29, 2022. After reviewing the Complaint and finding deficiencies with this pleading, the undersigned determined that Plaintiff should be provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies. On May 23, 2022, the undersigned entered an Order explaining the deficiencies in the Complaint and providing Plaintiff with specific instructions regarding filing of an amended complaint by July 6, 2022. Doc. 6. Plaintiff was informed his failure to comply with the May 23, 2022, Order would result in a Recommendation this case be dismissed. Doc. 6 at 3. To date Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise complied with the Order of May 23, 2022.
Because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the orders of the Court, the undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.). The authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). This authority empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. at 630-31; Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”). “The sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.” Id.
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
It is ORDERED that objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge must be filed by August 2, 2022. Any objections filed by a party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11TH Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
DONE