United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MICHAL B. LOZA, Plaintiff,
BILL FRANKLIN, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
B. Loza, an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action in which he challenges conditions at the Elmore
County Jail. Upon review of the financial information
submitted by Loza, the court issued an order that he pay the
$350 filing fee. Doc. 3. The Clerk mailed a copy of this
order to the plaintiff at the last address he provided for
service. The postal service returned this order as
undeliverable. Due to the returned mail, the court entered an
order requiring that on or before November 28, 2018 Loza
“file with the court a current address and/or show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure
to adequately prosecute this action.” Doc. 4. The order
specifically advised Loza that this case could not properly
proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and cautioned him
that his failure to comply with its directives would result
in the dismissal of this case. Doc. 4. As of the present
date, the court has received no response from Loza to the
aforementioned order nor has he provided the court with his
current address as is necessary to proceed before this court.
Under these circumstances, the court finds that dismissal of
this case is warranted.
accordance with Eleventh Circuit law, the 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 Loza is an indigent
individual and the imposition of monetary or other punitive
sanctions against him would be ineffectual. It likewise
appears that since his release from the Elmore County Jail
Loza is 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.
Finally, this case cannot properly proceed when Loza's
whereabouts are unknown.
the court concludes that this case is due to be dismissed.
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.
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
before December 18, 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).
The last address provided to the court
by Loza is the Elmore County ...