Opinion
2:22-CV-294-WHA-KFP
07-06-2022
PETER PAN, Plaintiff, v. CHILTON COUNTY JUDICIAL SYSTEM, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KELLY FITZGERALD PATE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Peter Pan filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on May 12, 2022. On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff's copy of the Order entered on May 19, 2022, was returned to the Clerk marked as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer detained at the last service address he provided. As a result, the Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiff by June 16, 2022, to file a new address or show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Doc. 4. This Order specifically advised Plaintiff that this case could not proceed if his whereabouts are unknown and warned that a failure to comply would result in dismissal. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not provided a current service address or otherwise complied with the Order.
The last service address of record for Plaintiff is the Chilton County Jail in Clanton, Alabama.
Because of Plaintiff's failure to comply, the undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that dismissal for failure to obey a court order is generally not an abuse of discretion where litigant has been forewarned). 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.” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 102.
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
Further, it is ORDERED that by July 20, 2022, the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. The parties must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the 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 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waive the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11TH Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).