United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHEN M. DOYLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) against
her former employer, AECOM/AC FIRST
(“Defendant”), alleging, inter alia,
harassment and discrimination. (Doc. 1) at 2. Plaintiff also
filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 2), which was denied by Order (Doc. 7) of
this Court on August 29, 2018. In the Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis,
the United States Magistrate Judge previously assigned to
this case directed Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee,
on or before September 12, 2018. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff was
specifically warned that “if she fails to respond to
this order, this case may be dismissed for failure to
prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
or under the court's inherent authority.”
Id. Plaintiff has yet to pay the filing fee.
December 27, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
9) arguing the case should be dismissed because Plaintiff had
not yet paid the filing fee and because Defendant had not yet
been served with the Summons and Complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). (Doc. 9) at 1-4. On January 11, 2019, the
undersigned entered a Order to Show Cause (Doc. 11) directing
Plaintiff to show cause, on or before February 1, 2019, why
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should not be granted. On
February 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed an untimely Response (Doc.
12) stating she “was under the assumption that the case
was already dismissed” because she had not paid the
filing fee. (Doc. 12) at 1. She also stated that she would
“like to continue pursing my case.” Id.
when representing themselves, pro se litigants are
still required to conform to procedural rules and obey court
orders. Saint Vil v. Perimeter Mortg. Funding Corp.,
717 Fed.Appx. 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2017). District courts
possess the ability to dismiss a case for want of prosecution
based on two possible sources of authority: Fed.R.Civ.P.
41(b) or their inherent authority to manage their dockets.
Eades v. Ala. Dep't of Human Res., 298 Fed.Appx.
862, 863 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Betty K Agencies Ltd.
v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005);
see also Thomas v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 170
Fed.Appx. 623, 625 (11th Cir. 2006). While dismissal is an
extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order,
especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally
is within the court's discretion. Moon v.
Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). A district
court has inherent authority to manage its own docket to
achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases and
may dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to prosecute it or
comply with a court order. Riddell v. Florida, 702
Fed.Appx. 869, 871 (11th Cir. 2017). In exercising its
authority over the docket, a district court need not tolerate
defiance of reasonable orders. Id. (citations
Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's Orders
and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff did not
pay the $400 filing fee as directed by the Court. (Doc. 7).
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to properly serve
Defendant in accordance with the Rules. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m)
(“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action
without prejudice. . . .”). Finally, Plaintiff failed
to timely respond to this Court's order to show cause why
the case should not be dismissed. (Doc. 11). In that untimely
response, plaintiff, other than stating she would “like
to continue pursing my case, ” did not provided the
Court with any cause for her failure to perfect service
within the specified time or to pay the required filing fee.
(Doc. 12) at 1. Indeed, Plaintiff has failed to take any
action to move her case forward since filing it over seven
months ago. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
9) be GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) be
DISMISSED without prejudice. Further, it is
that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any objections to the said
Recommendation on or before April 12, 2019.
Plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and
legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is
made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections 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 Plaintiff 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. Nettles v. Wainwright,
677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein
v. Lanning ...