United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
ARMOD RASHAD JAHMAL BOSWELL, a.k.a., Armond Boswell, Plaintiff,
LARRY NIXON, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
M. BORDEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on an
amended complaint filed by Armod Rashad Jahmal Boswell, an
inmate incarcerated at the Autauga Metro Jail at the time he
initiated this case. In the instant action, Boswell alleges
that the defendant subjected him to an illegal arrest on June
8, 2017 because “[h]e arrested me without any sort of
warrant being out for my arrest.” Doc. 12 at 3.
defendant filed a special report supported by relevant
evidentiary materials, including a declaration from the
defendant and jail records addressing Boswell's claim for
relief. The report and evidentiary materials refute the
self-serving, conclusory allegations presented by Boswell.
Specifically, the defendant maintains that there has been no
violation of Boswell's constitutional rights with respect
to his arrest on June 8, 2017 as arrest warrants had been
issued by the Circuit Court of Autauga County, Alabama on May
22, 2017 for his failure to appear for probation revocation
on May 22, 2017 and an additional warrant issued on May 24,
2017 for obstructing governmental operations. Doc. 24-1 at
light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing
Boswell to file a response to the defendant's written
report. Doc. 25. The order advised Boswell 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. 25 at 2. 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. 25 at 2.
time allotted to Boswell for filing a response in compliance
with the directives of this order expired on February 19,
2019. As of the present date Boswell has failed to file a
response in opposition to the defendant's written report.
The court therefore finds 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. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 248
Fed.Appx. 116, 117-18 (11th Cir. 2007). After this review,
the court finds that dismissal of this case is the proper
course of action. Initially, the court observes that the
imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against
Boswell would be ineffectual because he is an indigent
individual. Next, Boswell's inaction in the face of the
defendant's report and evidence suggests a loss of
interest in the continued prosecution of this case. Moreover,
the evidentiary materials submitted by the defendant, which
are at this point undisputed by Boswell, demonstrate that no
violation of the Constitution occurred. Finally, it appears
that any additional effort by this court to secure
Boswell'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 Boswell
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.” 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.
these reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate
Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice.
before May 22, 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; se ...