Niebla v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Full title: JORGE L. NIEBLA, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division

Date published: Jun 16, 2008

5:08cv105/RS/MD (N.D. Fla. Jun. 16, 2008)

Opinion

5:08cv105/RS/MD.

June 16, 2008

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MILES DAVIS, Magistrate Judge

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff initiated this cause through the filing of a pleading entitled "emergency complaint" on April 14, 2008. On April 21, 2008, this court entered an order directing plaintiff to either the full $350.00 filing fee or a complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days.¹ (Doc. 4). When plaintiff did not respond, the court entered an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and comply with an order of the court. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff has failed to respond to this order.

1 Local Rule 5.1(H) provides that a civil action shall not be filed by the clerk until the fee is paid or the complaint or petition is accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court also notes that the plaintiff is a "three-striker" who is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis in any action unless he alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court and failure to prosecute this action.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within ten days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only, and does not control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11^th Cir. 1988).