United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
F. MOORER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
August 22, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report and
recommendation which recommends this action be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with the court's orders. See Doc. 5.
Objections were due September 5, 2018. It does not appear
that objections were filed. However, the Plaintiff has filed
two separate pleadings which the Court will consider in
conjunction with the report and recommendation. See
the file in this case including Plaintiff's most recent
filings, Plaintiff still fails to remedy the deficiencies
identified by the magistrate judge. Specifically, the
magistrate judge previously ordered Plaintiff to properly
sign and file his complaint and also ordered plaintiff to pay
the filing fee or complete a motion to proceed without
prepayment of fees. See Doc. 2. The magistrate judge
further warned plaintiff that “failure to comply with
this order within the prescribed time will result in a
recommendation of dismissal without prejudice of this action
for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's
orders.” Id. Plaintiff did not comply and did
not return a signed complaint. Nor did he complete the
entirety of the motion to proceed without prepayment of fees.
He completed the first two pages, but did not complete the
remainder of the form or a copy of his institutional printout
as required. The only documents Plaintiff filed relate to a
request for protective custody and removal from the William
Donaldson correctional facility.
reviewing the most recent filings, none of them constitute a
proper objection to the report and recommendation as they are
not specific, fail to identify the finding or recommendation
to which the objection is made, and do not state the basis
for the objection. Regardless, the Court has considered the
pleadings when reviewing the entire case file.
U.S.C. § 1654 permits a person to “plead and
conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” Even
so, pro se litigants are required to conform to the
procedural rules. See McNeil v. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1984, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993);
Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir.
2002); Vil v. Perimeter Mortgage Funding Corp., 715
Fed.Appx. 912 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2017). Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a)
requires that a party's filings be signed by an attorney
for the party OR by the party personally if proceeding
pro se. Moreover, “the court must strike an
unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected
after being called to…the party's
attention.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a).
Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for failure
to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order or the
federal rules. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc'ns,
178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). Further, such a
dismissal may be done on motion of the defendant or sua
sponte as an inherent power of the court. Betty K
Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th
Cir. 2005). “[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order,
especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally
is not an abuse of discretion.” Vil, 715
Fed.Appx. at 915 (quoting Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)).
have been no proper responses to the Court's orders and
the Court adequately warned Plaintiff of the consequences of
not responding. In light of Plaintiff's failure to comply
with the court orders, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
failed to comply with submitting a properly signed complaint
and the complete application for proceeding without
prepayment of fees. “[E]ven a non-lawyer should realize
the peril to [his] case, when [he] . . . ignores numerous
notices” and fails to comply with court orders.
Anthony v. Marion Cty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164,
1169 (5th Cir. 1980); see also 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.). Therefore, the
Court finds it appropriate to exercise its “inherent
power” to “dismiss [Plaintiff's claims]
sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Link
v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8
L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v.
M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)
(describing the judicial power to dismiss sua sponte
for failure to comply with court orders).
the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED and this action is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
prosecute and obey the Court's order. All remaining
motions are DENIED as moot.