United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
M. BORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Ellison, a frequent federal litigant confined in the Autauga
Metro Jail since July 5, 2017 awaiting trial on six counts of
possession of a forged instrument, initiated this cause of
action on August 2, 2018. After reviewing the complaint and
finding deficiencies with this pleading, the court determined
that Ellison should be provided an opportunity to file an
amended complaint to correct the deficiencies. The court
therefore issued an order providing Ellison with instructions
for filing an amended complaint and cautioned him that the
failure to file an amended complaint in response to the order
would result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed.
Doc. 5 at 3-4. Ellison failed to file an amended complaint
within the time permitted by this order.
on this failure, the court issued an order requiring
“that on or before September 24, 2018 the plaintiff . .
. (i) [s]how cause why he has failed to file an amended
complaint in compliance with the directives of the order
entered on August 17, 2018 (Doc. 5), and (ii) if he so
chooses, file the requisite amended complaint.” Doc. 6.
The court again advised Ellison “that if he fails to
file an amended complaint as directed by this court the
undersigned will issue a Recommendation that this case be
dismissed for such failure.” Doc. 6. As of the present
date, Ellison has failed to file an amended complaint in
compliance with the directives of the orders entered in this
light of Ellison's failure to file the requisite amended
complaint, the court finds that this case should be dismissed
without prejudice. Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed.Appx. 924
(11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal
without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for
failure to file an amendment to the complaint in compliance
with court's prior order directing amendment and warning
of consequences for failure to comply); see 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.
these reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate
Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice.
before November 16, 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.
 The court takes judicial notice of the
case action summary for Ellison's pending criminal cases
as maintained on the Alabama Trial Court System, hosted at
www.alacourt.com. See Keith v. DeKalb Cnty., 749
F.3d 1034, 1041 n.18 (11th Cir. 2014) (taking judicial notice
of a state's online judicial system). The state-court
record establishes that a grand jury sitting within Autauga
County returned an indictment on March 17, 2017 charging
Ellison with six counts of possession of a forged instrument.
On July 5, 2017, a ...