United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a
complaint and amendment thereto filed by Matthew Shaper, an
indigent state inmate currently incarcerated at the Elmore
Correctional Facility. In the instant civil action, Shaper
asserts that the defendants violated his constitutional
rights regarding their investigations of a robbery and
subsequent theft of items from his locker box committed by
other inmates at Elmore.
The
defendants filed special reports supported by relevant
evidentiary materials, including affidavits, prison reports,
medical records and digital video recordings, in which they
address the claims for relief presented by Shaper. The report
and evidentiary materials refute the self-serving, conclusory
allegations presented by Shaper. Specifically, the defendants
maintain there was no violation of Shaper's
constitutional rights with respect to the actions about which
he complains.
Upon
review of the digital video recordings filed by the
defendants, the court deemed it appropriate to determine
whether Shaper wished to continue with this case. Thus, the
court issued an order directing Shaper to “advise the
court of whether he seeks to proceed with this cause of
action.” Doc. 91. The order specifically cautioned
Shaper that his failure to file a response to this order
would result in the dismissal of this case. Doc. 91. The time
allotted Shaper for filing a response in compliance with the
directives of this order expired on February 19, 2019. As of
the present date, Shaper has failed to file a requisite
response. 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. Initially, the court finds that
the imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions
against Shaper would be ineffectual. Next, Shaper's
inaction in the face of the digital video recordings and his
failure to respond to the court's latest order
demonstrates a loss of interest in the continued prosecution
of this case. Finally, it appears that any additional effort
by this court to secure Shaper's compliance with its
order would be unavailing and a waste of this court's
scarce judicial resources. Consequently, the court concludes
that Shaper's failure to comply with an order of this
court and his apparent abandonment of this case 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.” Id. 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.” Id.
For the
above stated reasons and under the circumstances of this
case, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that
this case be dismissed with prejudice.
On or
before March 11, 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. § 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. ...