Opinion
CV418-177
08-30-2018
MORRIS SCOTT HOLMES, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN FNU FORD, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Morris Scott Holmes has failed to comply with the August 16, 2018 deadline for paying his filing fee or submitting an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Doc. 2 (Order warning of dismissal if he failed to return his fee or IFP form by that date). Despite being clearly warned of the consequences of doing so, Holmes has elected to disobey an order of this Court. This case should therefore be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing district courts to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order); L.R. 41.1(c) (authorizing district court to dismiss for lack of prosecution); see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Collins v. Lake Helen, L.P., 249 F. App'x 116, 120 (11th Cir. 2007) ("[D]istrict court[s] possesses the inherent power to police [their] docket[s]" and to prune out those cases left to languish by their litigants).
This report and recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations." Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F. App'x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 30th day of August, 2018.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA