Opinion
1:22-CV-378-WHA-CSC [WO]
08-18-2022
EIBE SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. DAVE SUTTON, SHERIFF, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on June 24, 2022. On June 30, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. The June 30 Order also informed Plaintiff that he must immediately inform the Court of any new address and that failure to do so within ten (10) days following any change of address would result in the dismissal of this action. Doc. 3 at 3. The docket reflects that Plaintiff received the June 30 Order.
On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff's copy of an Order entered July 15, 2022, was returned to the Court marked as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer housed at the last service address he provided. Accordingly, the Court entered an Order on August 3, 2022, requiring that by August 15, 2022, Plaintiff show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to adequately prosecute this action. Doc. 8. The Order specifically advised Plaintiff the administration of this case could not proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and informed him his failure to comply with its directives would result in a Recommendation this case be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff's copy of the August 3, 2022, Order was returned to the Court on August 17, 2022, marked as undeliverable. The Court therefore concludes this case should be dismissed.
Because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order of the Court, the undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. New some, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.). 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.” Id.
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
It is ORDERED that by September 1, 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 un objected-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).