Brown v. King (INMATE 1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRANDON RAYMOND BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 1:19-CV-358-RAH-KFP

)

LT. KING,, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an indigent inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the

constitutionality of conditions at the Houston County Jail. Doc. 1. The Court’s Order of

Procedure directed Plaintiff to inform the Court immediately of any address change and

advised him that a failure to do so within ten days following a change of address would

result in dismissal. Doc. 10 ¶ 8. Plaintiff twice complied with this requirement by filing a

notice of change of address. See Docs. 18, 41. The Court then received information that

Plaintiff was no longer at the last address he provided and ordered him to inform the Court

of his current address by July 23, 2021. Doc. 51. Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court

with a current address or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order. Under these

circumstances, the undersigned finds that this case should be dismissed.

The undersigned 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 F. App’x 116, 117–18 (11th Cir. 2007). However, this case cannot proceed

in Plaintiff’s absence, and it appears that Plaintiff is no longer interested in prosecuting this

case. Further, additional efforts to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing and

a waste of the Court’s scarce resources. Consequently, the undersigned concludes that this

case is due to be dismissed. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)

(explaining that generally dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of

discretion where a litigant has been forewarned). 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) (recognizing that

a “district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket” and that sanctions

imposed on “dilatory litigants . . . can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing

the action with or without prejudice”).

For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this case be dismissed

without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and prosecute this case.

It is further ORDERED that by September 2, 2021, the parties may file objections

to the Recommendation. The parties must specifically identify the factual findings and

legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous,

conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the Court. The parties are

advised that this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

recommendations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo

determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the

Recommendation and waive 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 on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Reynolds Sec.,

Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206

(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

DONE this 19th day of August, 2021.

/s/ Kelly Fitzgerald Pate

KELLY FITZGERALD PATE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE