From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Menefee v. Brown

United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama
Aug 16, 2022
Civ. Act. 1:22-cv-39-TFM-B (S.D. Ala. Aug. 16, 2022)

Opinion

Civ. Act. 1:22-cv-39-TFM-B

08-16-2022

BRIAN MENEFEE, # 196705, Plaintiff, v. C. O. BROWN, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TERRY F. MOORER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On July 14, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation which recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with the court's orders. See Doc. 7. No objections were filed.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order or the federal rules. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc'ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). Further, such a dismissal may be done on motion of the defendant or sua sponte as an inherent power of the court. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). “[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Vil v. Perimeter Mortg. Funding Corp., 715 Fed.Appx. 912, 915 (quoting Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)). “[E]ven a non-lawyer should realize the peril to [his] case, when [he] . . . ignores numerous notices” and fails to comply with court orders. Anthony v. Marion Cty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1169 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Moon, 863 F.2d at 837 (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.). Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its “inherent power” to “dismiss [Plaintiff's claims] sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1337 (describing the judicial power to dismiss sua sponte for failure to comply with court orders).

Since the filing of his complaint on January 31, 2022 and a follow up letter to the Clerk requesting a case number on February 14, 2022, there has been no additional action by the Plaintiff despite several orders for him to pay a partial filing fee after the Court granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Docs. 5, 6. Moreover, no objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, after due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey the Court's orders.

DONE and ORDERED.


Summaries of

Menefee v. Brown

United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama
Aug 16, 2022
Civ. Act. 1:22-cv-39-TFM-B (S.D. Ala. Aug. 16, 2022)
Case details for

Menefee v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN MENEFEE, # 196705, Plaintiff, v. C. O. BROWN, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama

Date published: Aug 16, 2022

Citations

Civ. Act. 1:22-cv-39-TFM-B (S.D. Ala. Aug. 16, 2022)