stating that dismissal for failure to obey a court order is generally not an abuse of discretion where litigant has been forewarned
How later courts described this case
- stating that dismissal for failure to obey a court order is generally not an abuse of discretion where litigant has been forewarned
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
THOMAS MITCHELL, AIS 158181, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:22-CV-342-ECM-KFP
)
ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS )
and PAROLES MEMBERS, )
)
Defendant. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Mitchell, an inmate at the Staton Correctional Facility in
Elmore, Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint on June 6, 2022. On June 16,
2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff either to pay the $402.00 filing and administrative fees or
file an affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by July 7,
2022. Doc. 3. The Court also informed Plaintiff that a failure to comply would result in
dismissal. Doc. 3. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response or otherwise complied with
the Order.
Because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders, the undersigned
concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that dismissal for failure to obey a court order is generally
not an abuse of discretion where 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)
(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.” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 102.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED
without prejudice.
Further, it is ORDERED that by September 28, 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, 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 14th day of September, 2022.
/s/ Kelly Fitzgerald Pate
KELLY FITZGERALD PATE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE