United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Russ Walker United States Magistrate Judge.
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a
complaint filed by Marcus Montez Spangler, an indigent state
inmate currently incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional
Facility. Spangler, a frequent federal litigant, alleges that
on January 12, 2018 correctional officers at Bullock
subjected him to the use of excessive force. Doc. 1 at 3.
to the orders of this court, the defendants filed a special
report supported by relevant evidentiary materials, including
affidavits and medical records, in which they address the
claims for relief presented by Spangler. The report and
evidentiary materials respond to the conclusory allegations
presented by Spangler. Specifically, the defendants maintain
that correctional officers observed Spangler masturbating on
female personnel and, when they questioned him about the
behavior, Spangler pushed defendant Haigler and became
verbally combative. Doc. 13-1 at 1-2 & Doc. 13-4 at 2.
Defendants contend that Haigler and Harris took Spangler to
the ground using only that amount of force necessary to gain
control of Spangler and place him in handcuffs. Id.
light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing
Spangler to file a response to the defendants' written
report. Doc. 14. The order advised Spangler that his failure
to respond to the report would be treated by the court
“as an abandonment of the claims set forth in
the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this
action.” Doc. 14 at 1 (emphasis in original).
Additionally, the order “specifically cautioned
[the plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in
compliance with the directives of this order”
would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Doc. 14
at 1 (emphasis in original). The time allotted Spangler for
filing a response in compliance with the this order expired
on May 14, 2018. Spangler has failed to file a response in
opposition to the defendants' written report. 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, 117-118 (11th Cir. 2007).
After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is
the proper course of action at this time. Spangler is
indigent. Thus, the imposition of monetary or other punitive
sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally,
Spangler's inaction in the face of the defendants'
report and evidence suggests a loss of interest in the
continued prosecution of this case. Finally, the evidentiary
materials submitted by the defendants, which are at this
point undisputed by the plaintiff, demonstrate that no
violation of the Constitution occurred. It therefore appears
that any additional effort by this court to secure
Spangler's compliance would be unavailing and a waste of
scarce judicial resources. Consequently, the court concludes
that Spangler's abandonment of his claims and his failure
to comply with an order of this court warrant dismissal.
See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.
1989) (holding that, generally, 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). 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; Mingo v.
Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102
(11th Cir. 1989) (holding that a “district court
possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”).
“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
further ORDERED that on or before July 5,
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. 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. 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).
 This defendant's true name is
Devonte Haigler. In the interest of clarity, the court will
refer to the defendant ...