Opinion
1:22-CV-356-RAH-KFP
07-28-2023
JUSTIN REEVES, Plaintiff, v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC., Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KELLY FITZGERALD PATE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Justin Reeves filed this lawsuit on May 10, 2022, in the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama. See Doc. 1-1. On June 10, 2022, Defendant Waffle House, Inc. removed the case to this Court. See Doc. 1; see also Docs. 10-11, 16-17. After discovery ensued, Defendant mailed Plaintiff several letters addressing discovery issues, but the correspondence was returned as undeliverable due to either an insufficient forwarding address or because the mail went unclaimed. See Doc. 23 at 2. Plaintiff then failed to appear at his deposition, after which Defendant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to identify its experts. See id. at 2-3. The Court held a telephone hearing on Defendant's motion on July 14, 2023, and Plaintiff failed to attend. See Docs. 25, 26. The docket reflects that the Court's Order setting the telephone hearing was returned as undeliverable with an insufficient forwarding address.
Plaintiff was initially represented by attorneys Charlotte Nicole Pierce, William Gant Pierce, and Jacob Payne. However, Plaintiff proceeded pro se after the District Court granted his attorneys' Motion to Withdraw on March 17, 2023. See Docs. 21-22.
On July 14, 2023, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute by July 24, 2023. Doc. 28. The deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the Court's July 14 Order has passed without Plaintiff's response. Consequently, the Court concludes that dismissal of this action without prejudice is appropriate. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that, generally, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's July 14 Order.
Further, it is ORDERED that by August 11, 2023, the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. A party 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, 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. See 11TH Cir. R. 3-1.