United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
JACKY ALLEN ROGERS, JR., a.k.a., Jackie Allen Rogers, a.k.a., Syko Rogers, Plaintiff,
JASON SMOAK, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Allen Rogers, Jr., an indigent inmate, initiated this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action on November 29, 2017. In this civil
action, Rogers challenges the medical treatment provided to
him for injuries suffered in a fall while confined at the
Houston County Jail.
order of procedure entered on December 5, 2017 instructed
Rogers to immediately inform the court of any new address.
Doc. 4 at 4, ¶7 (“The plaintiff shall immediately
inform the court and the defendant or, if counsel has
appeared on behalf of the defendant, counsel of record of any
change in his address. Failure to provide a correct address
to this court within ten (10) days following any change of
address will result in the dismissal of this action.”).
The docket indicates Rogers received a copy of this order.
However, the postal service returned as undeliverable an
order entered on February 16, 2018 (Doc. 7) because Rogers no
longer resided at the last address he had provided to the
on the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring Rogers
to inform the court of his current address on or before March
12, 2018. Doc. 8 at 1. This order directed Rogers to
“show cause why this case should not be dismissed for
his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his
failure to adequately prosecute this action.” Doc. 8 at
1. The court “specifically cautioned [Rogers] that if
he fails to respond to this order the Magistrate Judge will
recommend that this case be dismissed.” Doc. 8 at 1. As
of the present date, Rogers has failed to provide the court
with his current address pursuant to the directives of the
orders entered in this case. The court therefore concludes
that this case should be dismissed.
court has reviewed the file to determine whether a less
drastic measure than dismissal is appropriate. See
Abreu-Velez v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of
Georgia, 248 Fed.Appx. 116, 117-18 (11th Cir. 2007).
After such review, the court finds that dismissal of this
case is the proper course of action. Initially, the court
notes that Rogers is an indigent individual and the
imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against
him would be ineffectual. Moreover, Rogers has failed to
comply with the directives of the orders entered by this
court regarding provision of a current address. It likewise
appears that Rogers is simply no longer interested in the
prosecution of this case and any additional effort to secure
his compliance would be unavailing and a waste of this
court's scarce resources.
the court concludes that Rogers' failure to comply with
the orders of this court warrant dismissal of this case.
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)
(holding that, 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). “The district
court possesses the inherent power to police its
docket.” Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of
Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989). This authority
empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as
to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31. “The
sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a
simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or
without prejudice.” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 102.
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
before March 29, 2018, the parties may file
objections 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 to the Recommendation will
not be considered.
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. 11TH Cir.