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
How later courts described this case
- 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
- As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MARCUS MONTEZ SPANGLER, )
#188 712, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-284-RAH
) [WO]
SGT. RANDOLPH, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility in Union Springs,
Alabama. He filed this complaint on April 27, 2020. On May 4, 2020, the court directed
Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims for relief. In
compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted an answer written report which contained
relevant evidentiary materials refuting 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’ 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 directives of the
court’s August 17, 2020, order expired on September 7, 2020. As of the present date, Plaintiff has
failed to file a response in opposition to Defendants’ written 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 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 Defendants’ written 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 F. 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.
On or before October 27, 2020, 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 13th day of October 2020.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE