United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a
complaint filed by Tyrone Dwayne Owens, Jr., an indigent
state inmate currently incarcerated at the St. Clair
Correctional Facility. In the instant complaint, Owens
asserts that correctional officers used excessive force
against him in October of 2017 during his incarceration at
the Easterling Correctional Facility. Doc. 1 at 3. Owens
further complains that Warden Myers acted with deliberate
indifference to his health and safety. Doc. 1 at 3.
defendants filed a special report and supplemental special
report supported by relevant evidentiary materials, including
affidavits, prison reports and a medical record, in which
they address the claims for relief presented by Owens.
Specifically, the defendant correctional officers deny they
used excessive force against Owens and, instead, argue that
they used only the amount of force necessary to gain control
of Owens, bring him in compliance with several direct orders
and maintain security of the facility. Doc. 15-4 at 1. Warden
Myers likewise denies he acted with deliberate indifference
to Owens' health or safety. Doc. 15-1 at 1-2.
light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing
Owens to file a response to the defendants' written
reports. Doc. 22. The order advised Owens 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. 22 at 1 (emphasis in original).
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. 22
at 1 (emphasis in original). The time allotted Owens for
filing a response in compliance with the directives of this
order expired on August 16, 2019. Doc. 22 at 1. As of the
present date, Owens has failed to file a response in
opposition to the defendants' written reports. In light
of Owens' failure to file a requisite response to the
written reports of the defendants, the court 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. 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 at this time. Specifically, Owens
is an indigent individual. Thus, the imposition of monetary
or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual.
Additionally, his inaction in the face of the defendants'
reports and evidence strongly suggests a loss of interest in
the continued prosecution of this case. Finally, it appears
that any additional effort by this court to secure Owens'
compliance with its orders would be unavailing and a waste of
this court's scarce judicial resources. Consequently, the
court concludes that the abandonment of this case by Owens
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.
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
before September 27, 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.