# Vreeland v. Jackson(INMATE 1)

> District Court, M.D. Alabama · September 10, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10630405

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Alabama
- **Decided:** September 10, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10630405

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that generally dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion where a litigant has been forewarned

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

CHAD VREELAND, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-CV-459-WKW-KFP
)
WARDEN JACKSON, 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 Elmore 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. See Doc. 4 ¶ 8. On August 13, 2021, the postal service returned a
document to the Court indicating that Plaintiff is no longer at the last address he provided
for service. The Court ordered Plaintiff to inform the Court of his current address by
September 2, 2021. Doc. 10. This Order was also returned to the Court. Thus, Plaintiff has
failed to comply with the requirement that he provide the Court with a current address, and
this case cannot proceed if his whereabouts are unknown. 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 24, 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 10th day of September, 2021.

/s/ Kelly Fitzgerald Pate
KELLY FITZGERALD PATE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10630405. Public record. Not legal advice.