United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a
complaint filed by Joseph Lee Osbourne, an indigent inmate,
in which he challenges the failure of correctional officers
at Ventress Correctional Facility to protect him from attack
by another inmate on December 16, 2017. On July 30, 2019, the
court issued the initial orders in this case, Docs. 4 and 5,
copies of which the Clerk mailed to the plaintiff at his
address of record. The postal service returned these orders
because the plaintiff refused to accept delivery of this mail
from the court. The returned mail contains the notation
“inmate will not pick up.”
Based
on the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring
“that on or before September 9, 2019 [Osbourne] show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure
to accept mail sent to him from this court.” Doc. 9 at
1. In this order, the court “specifically cautioned
[Osbourne] that if he again refuses his mail and fails to
respond to this order the Magistrate Judge will recommend
that this case be dismissed due to his failure to maintain a
line of communication with the court and because, in the
absence of such, this case cannot proceed before this court
in an appropriate manner.” Doc. 9 at 1-2. The docket
establishes that Osbourne again failed to accept his mail
from the court. The court therefore concludes that this case
should be dismissed.
The
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 such review, the court finds that dismissal of this
case is the proper course of action. Initially, the court
notes that Osbourne is an indigent individual and the
imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against
him would be ineffectual. Moreover, it appears that Osbourne
is simply no longer interested in the prosecution of this
case and any additional effort to secure his compliance would
be unavailing and a waste of this court's scarce
resources. Finally, this case cannot properly proceed when
Osbourne refuses to maintain a line of communication with the
court.
Accordingly,
the court finds that Osbourne's repeated refusals to
accept his mail from the court relative to this case and his
failure to comply with an order of this court warrant
dismissal of this case. 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.
For the
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
prejudice.
On or
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.
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 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)(“When
the magistrate provides such notice and a party still fails
to object to the findings of fact and those ...