Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-322-WKW [WO]
09-01-2020
DOMONIC B. JOHNSON, #260 256, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN WILLIAM STREETER, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On May 19, 2020, the court directed Plaintiff to forward to the Clerk of Court an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $19.83. Doc. 3. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the May 19 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. Id.
The requisite time to comply with the May 19, 2020, order, as extended by orders entered June 11, 2020, and July 1, 2020 (Docs. 5, 8), has expired, and Plaintiff has not provided the court with the initial partial filing fee. The court, therefore, concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. 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.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App'x. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of this court.
On or before September 15, 2020, Plaintiff may file any objection to this Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. 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, this 1st day of September 2020.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE