As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.
How later courts described this case
- 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
MICHAEL MOORE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:22-CV-341-WHA-SMD
) [WO]
ALA. BD. OF PARDONS & PAROLES )
MEMBERS, )
)
Defendant. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on June 6, 2022. On June 7, 2022,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) by June 28, 2022. Doc. 3. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with
the June 7 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2. To
date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed an IFP motion. Nor has he filed a motion
for extension of time or otherwise attempted to justify his failure to do so.
Because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the June 7 order, the undersigned
concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. 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.). 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)
(holding that “[t]he 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, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice.
It is ORDERED that by July 22, 2022, the parties may file objections to this
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. 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
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 upon
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 8th day of July, 2022.
/s/ Stephen M. Doyle
STEPHEN M. DOYLE
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE