Opinion
4:22-cv-131-MW/MJF
09-01-2022
TAMMY MARIE STEFFEN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN STRONG, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael J. Frank, United States Magistrate Judge
On July 26, 2022, the undersigned entered a Second Order to Show Cause directing Petitioner to (1) file a notice of voluntary dismissal if she no longer was in the custody of the Respondent or a notice indicating she is in the custody of Respondent, and (2) explain and show cause for her failure to respond to the undersigned's orders of June 6, 2022 and July 6, 2022. Doc. 14. The undersigned warned Petitioner that her continued failure to comply with the undersigned's orders likely would result in dismissal. Notwithstanding this admonition, Petitioner still has not responded.
A district court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order, typically upon motion of the defendant. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1989) (citing cases). Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of the Northern District of Florida also authorizes the court to impose sanctions, up to and including dismissal, for failure to comply with a rule or court order. Thus, because Petitioner has repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and has failed to prosecute this case, the district court should dismiss her petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the District Court:
1. DISMISS Petitioner Steffen's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
2. Direct the clerk of the court to close the case file.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the report and recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only and does not control.
An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.