Opinion
5:23-CV-00383-MTT-CHW
03-05-2024
STEPHON SUGGS, Plaintiff, v. UNIT MANAGER WARD, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Charles H. Weigle, United States Magistrate Judge
Presently pending before the Court are the claims of pro se Plaintiff Stephon Suggs, an inmate presently incarcerated in the Telfair State Prison in Helena, Georgia, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his Complaint on the Court's standard form. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to comply, and he was warned that the failure to fully and timely comply with the Court's orders and instructions could result in the dismissal of this action. See generally Order, Nov. 8, 2023, ECF No. 5.
The time for compliance passed without a response from Plaintiff, and he was thus ordered to respond and show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case for failure to comply with the Court's orders and instructions. See generally Order, Dec. 14, 2023, ECF No. 6. Plaintiff responded with an affidavit seeking-among other things- appointment of a special master and a three-judge panel, a meeting with a United States Marshal and a Georgia Bureau of Investigations agent, additional writing materials, return of missing property, additional phone calls, and another copy of the Court's standard forms. Plaintiff also reasserted his innocence of the crimes for which he is imprisoned and complained about the conditions of his confinement. See generally Pl.'s Aff., Dec. 27, 2023, ECF No. 7. In addition, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order requesting that Defendants be ordered to provide him adequate medical care and to refrain from retaliating against him. Attach. 1 to Mot. TRO 1, ECF No. 8-1. Other documents attached to this motion appear largely to reiterate or substantiate Plaintiff's claims concerning his treatment in prison. See, e.g., Attach. 2 to Mot. TRO, ECF No. 8-2 (grievance forms). Finally, Plaintiff submitted a request for additional time to recast his Complaint, in part because he needed another copy of the Court's standard forms to comply. Mot. Ext. Time 1, Dec. 27, 2023, ECF No. 9.
In response, the Clerk's office mailed another copy of the Court's standard forms to Plaintiff, and the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to recast his Complaint. Plaintiff was ordered to submit his recast complaint on or before January 16, 2024. In a motion dated January 5, 2024, but received on January 23, 2024, Plaintiff requested another extension of time (ECF No. 10). The Court granted this motion and directed Plaintiff to file his recast complaint no later than February 26, 2024 (ECF No. 11). On that date, however, the Court's order granting Plaintiff's second motion for an extension of time was returned to the Court as undeliverable and was marked with a notation indicating Plaintiff “refused to sign for and accept this letter” (ECF No. 12).
The procedural history of this case demonstrates that Plaintiff has failed to fully and timely comply with the Court's orders and instructions despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. Moreover, Plaintiff's refusal to accept correspondence from the Court is a failure to prosecute that also warrants dismissal. It is accordingly RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice and that Plaintiff's pending motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 8) be DENIED as moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; see also Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)).
OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation with the Honorable Marc T. Treadwell, Chief United States District Judge, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of this Recommendation. Any objection is limited in length to TWENTY (20) PAGES. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. The parties may seek an extension of time in which to file written objections, provided a request for an extension is filed prior to the deadline for filing written objections. Failure to object in accordance with the provisions of § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district judge's order based on factual and legal conclusions to which no objection was timely made. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.