United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
F. MOORER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Clyde Holt [“Holt”] an inmate in the custody of
the Alabama Department of Corrections when he filed this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action,  challenges events which occurred
on June 30, 2015, during his confinement at the Frank Lee
Work Release Facility in Deatsville, Alabama. During the
pendency of this case, Plaintiff was released from the
custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections. Doc. 59.
February 7, 2018, the court entered an order directing
Plaintiff to “advise the court of whether he seeks to
proceed with this cause of action, which may entail
appearances before this court for various necessary
proceedings.” Doc. 60. The order further specifically
cautioned Plaintiff that “his failure to file a
response to this order will result in a recommendation this
case be dismissed for such failure.” Id.
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the court's February
7, 2018, order and the time for doing so has expired. The
court, therefore, concludes this case is due to be dismissed.
court has reviewed the file to determine whether a measure
less drastic than dismissal is appropriate. See
Abreu-Velez v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of
Georgia, 248 Fed. App'x 116, 117-118 (11th Cir.
2007). After such review, the court finds that dismissal is
the proper course of action. In making this determination,
the court notes Plaintiff failed to comply with the directive
in the court's February 7, 2018, order despite being
provided the opportunity to do so and despite being cautioned
that his failure to do so would result in a recommendation
this action be dismissed. The foregoing suggests that any
further effort by the court to secure Plaintiff's
compliance with court orders would be unavailing and also
reflects Plaintiff's lack of interest in the continued
prosecution of this case. This case cannot properly proceed
in Plaintiff's absence.
light of the foregoing, which evidences willful delay and/or
contempt by Plaintiff, the court concludes his failure to
comply with the orders of this court and his apparent
abandonment of this case warrant dismissal. See 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 Fed.
App'x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte
dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983
action for his failure to comply with court's prior order
directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure
to comply). A district court has “the inherent
authority to control the proceedings before [it], which
includes the authority to impose reasonable and appropriate
sanctions.” Martin v. Automobili Lamborghini
Exclusive, Inc., 307 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The authority of courts
to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or to obey an
order is longstanding and is acknowledged, but not limited,
by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 629-30 (1962). This authority gives the courts power
“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) (“The
sanctions imposed can range from a simple reprimand to an
order dismissing the action with or without
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to
comply with the orders of this court and to prosecute this
that on or before March 16, 2018, the
parties may file an objection to the Recommendation. A party
must specifically identify the factual findings and legal
conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is
made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not
to file a written objection 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.
11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark
Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993);
Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir.
Since filing the complaint, Holt has
been released from ...