Boswell v. Mims (INMATE 2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ARMOD RASHAD JAHMAL BOSWELL, )

a.k.a., Armond Boswell, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-716-ALB

) [WO]

JUSTIN T. MIMS, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on August 6, 2018. On November 14, 2018,

the court directed Defendant to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims for

relief presented in the amended complaint. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendant

submitted an answer and written report which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the

allegations in the amended complaint. Doc. 21. Upon review of this report, the court issued an

order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant’s answer and written report. Doc. 22. 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 directives of the

court’s April 17, 2019, order expired on May 8, 2019. As of the present date, Plaintiff has failed

to file a response in opposition to Defendant’s report. The court, therefore, concludes 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 F. App’x

116, 117–18 (11th Cir. 2007). After this review, it is clear dismissal of this case is the proper

course of action. Initially, the court finds that the imposition of monetary or other punitive

sanctions against Plaintiff would be ineffectual as he is an indigent individual. Next, Plaintiff’s

inaction in the face of Defendant’s report and evidentiary materials refuting 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 this

case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before September 5, 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. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders,

Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

Done, this 22nd day of August 2019.

/s/ Charles S. Coody

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE