The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
RODNEY TERRELL BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:20-CV-955-ECM-SRW
) [WO]
DERIUS LEWIS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Rodney Brown filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on November 19,
2020. Defendants have since filed an answer, written reports with supplement, and
supporting evidentiary materials denying Plaintiff’s allegations. Docs. 30, 36. On October
8, 2021, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ materials by October
29, 2021. Doc. 37. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to file a response would
result in a recommendation this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id. To date,
Plaintiff has not filed a response or otherwise complied with the Court’s October 8, 2021,
order.
A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure
to prosecute or obey a court order. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–
30 (1962); FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The Eleventh Circuit has made clear that “dismissal is
warranted only upon a ‘clear record of delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser
sanctions would not suffice.’” Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101,
102 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d
1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985)). Here, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has willfully failed
to file a response in compliance with the Court’s October 8, 2021, order. In light of
Plaintiff’s disregard for orders of this Court, the undersigned further finds that sanctions
lesser than dismissal would not suffice in this case.
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice.
It is ORDERED that the parties may file any objections to the Recommendation on
or before February 8, 2022. Any objections filed by a party must specifically identify
the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to
which objection is made. 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 25th day of January, 2022.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker
Susan Russ Walker
United States Magistrate Judge