From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. Gaston

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Jul 17, 2000
CIVIL ACTION 00-0428-RV-M (S.D. Ala. Jul. 17, 2000)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION 00-0428-RV-M

July 17, 2000


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


Plaintiff, a Mobile County prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). This action, which has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), is before the Court for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.

On May 22, 2000, Plaintiff was ordered to complete and re-file this Court's form for a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, or pay the $150.00 filing fee by June 12, 2000. (Doc. 4). The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at Mobile County Jail, his last known address. Plaintiff has not filed the new IFP or responded in any other way nor has the Order been returned to the Court by postal authorities as undelivered. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the Court's Order within the prescribed time would result in the dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute and to obey the Orders of the Court. The Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned prosecution of this action.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order, and upon consideration of other available alternatives, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order, as no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, 738 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films. Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied. Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145, 107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1993). Accord Chambers v. NASCO. Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) ((ruling that federal courts' inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir. 1993) (finding that the court's inherent power to manage actions before it permitted the imposition of fines),cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).


Summaries of

Richardson v. Gaston

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Jul 17, 2000
CIVIL ACTION 00-0428-RV-M (S.D. Ala. Jul. 17, 2000)
Case details for

Richardson v. Gaston

Case Details

Full title:DEMECTRIC LESHUN RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. GASTON, et al., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Jul 17, 2000

Citations

CIVIL ACTION 00-0428-RV-M (S.D. Ala. Jul. 17, 2000)