United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
TINA J. CARSON, Plaintiff,
WORLD MARINE OF ALABAMA, LLC, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
W. MILLING, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
and a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Docs. 1,
2). This action has been referred to the undersigned pursuant
for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. Gen.LR 72(a)(2)(R), and is before
the Court for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
Court's Order and to prosecute this action.
6, 2019, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment
of Fees (Doc. 2) was denied due to Plaintiff's lack of
information. Plaintiff's Motion did not convey a clear
and complete picture of her financial situation, showing how
she provided for life's basic necessities. Plaintiff,
however, was granted leave to file an amended motion to
proceed without prepayment of fees and was ordered to
carefully respond to the form's questions with specific
information not later than May 28, 2019 (Doc. 3). Plaintiff
was warned that her failure to comply with the Court's
Order within the ordered time or to advise the Court of a
change in address would result in dismissal of this action
for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order
(Doc. 3). The Order and form motion to proceed without
prepayment of fees were mailed to Plaintiff at 957 Baltimore
Street, Mobile, Alabama 36605, her last known address. To
date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's Order,
nor has the Order and form been returned as undeliverable.
Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned
prosecution of this action.
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order
and to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the
alternatives that are available to the Court, it is
recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to prosecute and to obey the
Court's Order, as no other lesser sanction will suffice.
Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct.
1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, 738 (1962) (interpreting Rule
41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to
dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of
prosecution); see also World Thrust Films, Inc. v.
International Family Entm't, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454,
1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995) (requesting the court to consider
lesser sanctions); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers
Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989)(Same);
Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir.
1985)(Same); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458
(11th Cir. 1983)(Same); Blunt v. U.S. Tobacco Co.,
856 F.2d 192 (6th Cir.1988) (Unpublished);
Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46
(1991)(ruling that federal courts' inherent power to
manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of
attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction);
Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46
(11th Cir.)(finding that the courts' inherent power to
manage actions before it permitted the imposition of fines),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 683 (1993).
OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
of this report and recommendation shall be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects
to this recommendation or anything in it must, within
fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document,
file specific written objections with the Clerk of this
Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b); S.D. Ala. Gen.LR 72(c). The parties should note that
under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to
object to a magistrate judge's findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district
court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for
objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to
object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the
court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in
the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order
to be specific, an objection must identify the specific
finding or recommendation to which ...