United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
CHEZ D. RICE, #220 474, Plaintiff,
v.
GWENDOLYN BABERS, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SUSAN
RUSS WALKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
a prison inmate, filed this complaint on March 19, 2019. On
March 21, 2019, the court directed Defendants to file an
answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims
for relief presented in the complaint. In compliance with the
court's order, Defendants submitted an answer and written
report which contained relevant evidentiary materials
addressing the allegations in the complaint. Doc. 16. Upon
review of this report, the court issued an order directing
Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants' answer and
written report. Doc. 17. The order advised Plaintiff that his
failure to respond to the report 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.”
Id. at 1. The order “specifically cautioned
[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. Id.
The
time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance
with the court's July 24, 2019, order, as extended by
order entered August 20, 2019, expired on September 4, 2019.
As of the present date, Plaintiff has failed to file a
response in opposition to Defendants' report. The court,
therefore, concludes that this case should be dismissed.
The
court has reviewed the file to determine whether a drastic
measure less 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 dismissal of this case is the
proper course of action. The imposition of monetary or other
punitive sanctions against Plaintiff would be ineffectual as
he is an indigent individual. Also, Plaintiff's inaction
in the face of Defendants' report and evidentiary
materials responding to the claims raised suggests a loss of
interest in the continued prosecution of this case. Finally,
it appears any additional effort by this court to secure
Plaintiff's compliance would be unavailing and a waste of
this court's scarce judicial resources. Consequently, the
court concludes Plaintiff's abandonment of this case and
his failure to comply with the orders of the court warrant
dismissal. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th
Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been
forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is
not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v.
Neal, 232 Fed.Appx. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming
sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of
inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an
amendment to complaint in compliance with court's prior
order directing amendment and warning of consequences for
failure to comply). The authority of courts to impose
sanctions for failure to prosecute or to obey an order is
longstanding and is acknowledged, but not limited, by Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30
(1962). This authority gives the courts power “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). “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.
It is
further
ORDERED
that upon review of Plaintiff's August 19, 2019, filing
(Doc. 18), said filing is considered solely as a Motion for
Extension of Time in accordance with the order of August 20,
2019 (Doc. 19), and the Clerk is DIRECTED to amend the court
docket accordingly.
It is
ORDERED
that on or before November 27, 2019, the
parties may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any
objection filed must specifically identify the findings in
the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party
objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not
be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised
this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it
is not appealable.
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. ...