Dean v. Olson (INMATE 2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEDRIC JAMAR DEAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-87-ECM

) [WO]

SHERIFF WALLY OLSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on February 26, 2020, while he was

incarcerated at the Dale County Jail in Ozark, Alabama. On February 11, 2020, the court entered

an order granting Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 6. This order

directed Plaintiff to “immediately inform the court and Defendants or Defendants’ counsel of

record of any change in his address.” Id. at 2. The order also advised Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to

provide a correct address to this court within ten (10) days following any change of address will

result in the dismissal of this action.” Id.

On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff’s copy of an order entered February 11, 2020, was returned to

the court marked as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer housed at the Dale County Jail.

Accordingly, the court entered an order on March 3, 2020, requiring that by March 13, 2020,

Plaintiff file with the court a current address and/or show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for his failure to adequately prosecute this action. Doc. 10. This order specifically

advised Plaintiff this case could not proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and cautioned

him that his failure to comply with its directives would result in the dismissal of this case. Id.

Plaintiff’s copy of the March 3, 2020, order was returned to the court on March 9, 2020, marked

as undeliverable. The court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a measure less drastic 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 such review, the court finds dismissal of this case is the proper

course of action. First, the administration of this case cannot properly proceed in Plaintiff’s

absence. Next, it appears Plaintiff is no longer interested in the prosecution of this case as he has

failed to comply with the order of the court. Finally, under the circumstances of this case, the court

finds that 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 undersigned concludes this

case is due to be dismissed. See 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) (observing 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.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be

DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failures to comply with the orders of this court and

to prosecute this action.

It is

ORDERED that on or before April 7, 2020, the parties may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party object. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 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, on this the 23rd day of March, 2020.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

Susan Russ Walker

United States Magistrate Judge