United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Eric Rondem, Sr., an indigent inmate, initiated this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he challenges actions that
occurred at the Lee County Detention Center in December of
2018. Upon review of the complaint, the court issued an order
requiring that Rondem file either a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis or the requisite filing
and administrative fees. Doc. 6. The Clerk mailed a copy of
this order to the plaintiff at the last address he provided
postal service returned this order as undeliverable because
Rondem is no longer confined in the Lee County Detention
Facility. Based on the returned mail, the court entered an
order requiring Rondem to inform the court of his current
address on or before March 15, 2019. Doc. 7 at 1. The court
“specifically cautioned [Rondem] that if he fails to
respond to this order the Magistrate Judge will recommend
that this case be dismissed due to his failure to keep the
court apprised of his current address and because, in the
absence of such, this case cannot proceed this court in an
appropriate manner.” Doc. 7 at 1-2. As of the present
date, Rondem has failed to provide the court with his current
address pursuant to the directives of the aforementioned
order. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that
this case should be dismissed.
court has reviewed the file to determine whether a less
drastic measure than dismissal is appropriate. See
Abreu-Velez v. Board of Regents of Unv. 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
administration of this case cannot properly proceed in
Rondem's absence. It likewise appears that since his
release from the Lee County Detention Facility Rondem is no
longer interested in the prosecution of this case as he has
not contacted the court. Finally, it appears that any
additional effort by this court to secure Rondem's
compliance would be unavailing and a waste of this
court's scarce judicial resources. Consequently, the
undersigned 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). 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.
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
before April 4, 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.
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 Rondem is the Lee County Detention ...