United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a
complaint filed by Michael Daniels, a former state inmate,
challenging actions which occurred at the Frank Lee Work
Release Center on June 1, 2017. In his complaint, Daniels
declared that he would “provide the Clerk's Office
with any changes to [his] address” and stated his
“understand[ing] that [the] failure to keep a current
address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the
dismissal of [this] case.” Doc. 1 at 10.
March 23, 2018, the court entered an order, a copy of which
the Clerk mailed to Daniels at his address of record.
However, the postal service returned this order as
undeliverable because Daniels no longer resides at this
address. In light of the returned mail, the court entered an
order requiring Daniels to inform the court of his current
address on or before April 16, 2018. Doc. 6 at 2. The order
specifically advised Daniels that this case could not proceed
if his whereabouts remained unknown and directed Daniels to
“file with the court a current address.” Doc. 6
at 1-2. The order also “specifically cautioned
[Daniels] that if he fails to respond to this order the
Magistrate Judge will recommend that this case be
dismissed.” Doc. 6 at 2. As of the present date, the
court has received no response from Daniels to the
aforementioned order nor has he provided the court his
current address as he acknowledged in his complaint is
necessary to proceed with this action. Based on the
foregoing, the court concludes that this case should be
dismissed without prejudice.
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 Daniels is an indigent individual and the
imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against
him would be ineffectual. Moreover, Daniels has failed to
furnish his current address to the court with full knowledge
that such failure could result in the dismissal of this case.
It likewise appears that that since his release from
incarceration Daniels is simply no longer interested in the
prosecution of this case. Finally, the court finds that any
additional effort to secure his compliance would be
unavailing and a waste of this court's scarce resources.
the court concludes that Daniels' 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). It is well established
that “[t]he 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 May 3, 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.
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. 1989). Done
this 19th day of April, 2018.
At the time Daniels filed the
complaint, he was incarcerated at the Fountain Correctional
Facility. This is the last address provided to the court by
Daniels. A recent search of the inmate database maintained by
the Alabama Department of Corrections,
http://doc.state.al.us/InmateSearch, indicates that