United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Susan
Russ Walker United States Magistrate Judge
This 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on an
amended complaint filed by Bobby Walker, an indigent state
inmate currently incarcerated at the Frank Lee Youth Center.
In the amended complaint, Walker alleges that while he was
confined at the Red Eagle Honor Farm, the defendants
subjected him to excessive force on July 23, 2018. Doc. 7 at
3.
The
defendants filed a special report supported by relevant
evidentiary materials, including affidavits, institutional
records and a body chart taken on the day of the altercation,
in which they address the claim for relief presented by
Walker. The report and evidentiary materials respond to the
allegations presented by Walker. Specifically, the defendants
assert that they did not act in violation of Walker's
constitutional rights as they only used that amount of force
necessary to gain control of Walker after he disobeyed orders
and acted in a disruptive manner. Doc. 14-1 at 1-2; Doc. 14-2
at 1. The evidentiary materials filed by the defendants
further demonstrate that Walker did not suffer any injury as
a result of the force used against him. Doc. 14-4.
In
light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing
Walker to file a response to the defendants' written
report. Doc. 15. The order advised Walker that his failure to
respond to the reports 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. 15 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. 15
at 1 (emphasis in original). The time allotted Walker for
filing a response in compliance with this order expired on
December 5, 2018. Walker has failed to file a response in
opposition to the defendants' written report. The court
therefore finds that this case should be dismissed.
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 this review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is
the proper course of action at this time. Specifically,
Walker is an indigent individual. Thus, the imposition of
monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be
ineffectual. Additionally, his 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 Walker, demonstrate that no
violation of the Constitution occurred. It likewise appears
that any additional effort by this court to secure
Walker's compliance would be unavailing and a waste of
this court's scarce judicial resources. Consequently, the
court concludes that the abandonment of this case by Walker
and his failure to comply with an order of this court warrant
dismissal. 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.
For the
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
prejudice.
On or
before February 20, 2019, 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. ยง 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 ...