Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-761-MHT (WO)
11-18-2015
KENNETH SHAUN TRAYWICK, AIS #177252, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER MATTHEWS, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kenneth Shaun Traywick, a state inmate, initiated this civil action on October 20, 2015. However, at such time, Traywick did not file the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee applicable when a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, nor did he submit an original affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by the required documentation from the inmate account clerk. Consequently, the court did not have the information necessary to determine whether Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and, therefore, entered an order requiring that Traywick provide the court with the necessary information on or before November 5, 2015. Order of October 21, 2015 - Doc. No. 3 at 1-2. The court specifically cautioned Traywick that failure to comply with this order would result in a Recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2.
As of the present date, Traywick has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned order. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 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.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App'x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Traywick's failure to file the requisite fees or provide the court with financial information in compliance with the order of this court.
It is further
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before December 2, 2015. 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. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives 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. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Done this 18th day of November, 2015.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE