Adams v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles (MAG+)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TIMMY EARL ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-CV-416-ECM-KFP

)

ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS )

AND PAROLE, et al., )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26), the undersigned

Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the motion be GRANTED to the extent set forth

below.

On June 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint by July 8. Doc. 21. The Court’s Order warned Plaintiff that a failure to file an

amended complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

Court’s Order could result in dismissal. Doc. 21 at 6–7. Plaintiff filed a motion requesting

a 30-day extension of his deadline, which the Court granted, extending the deadline to

August 8 but warning that no further extensions would be granted absent extraordinary

circumstances. Doc. 23 at 1. Plaintiff then filed motion seeking another 30-day extension

because he had testified positive for COVID-19. Doc. 24. The Court denied Plaintiff’s

request for a 30-day extension but, due to his illness, granted Plaintiff a 14-day extension

to August 22 to file his amended complaint. Doc. 25. The Court’s Order warned Plaintiff

that it would recommend dismissal if he failed to file an amended complaint by the August

22 deadline. Doc. 25. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint.

Because of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and comply with court orders,

the undersigned concludes that this case should be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d

835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating 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.

Here, Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite multiple court orders

requiring him to do so and despite multiple warnings that this case would be dismissed if

he failed to comply. Accordingly, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.1

1 In the final sentence of their motion, Defendants ask for a dismissal with prejudice “with costs taxed to

the Plaintiff for his failure to prosecute the matter and/or obey the Orders of the Court.” Doc. 26. Defendants

provided no argument or legal authority on the issue of taxing costs; therefore, the request does not warrant

consideration. Beam v. McNeilus Trauck & Mfg., Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1279 (N.D. Ala. 2010) (stating

court would not consider arguments not fully developed or bolstered with legal authority) (citing Resolution

Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir. 1995) and United States Steel Corp. v. Astrue,

495 F.3d 1272, 1287 n. 13 (11th Cir. 2007) (refusing to address a party’s “perfunctory and underdeveloped

argument”).

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 26) be GRANTED to the extent it seeks a dismissal with prejudice but

DENIED to the extent it requests costs to be taxed against Plaintiff.

Further, it is ORDERED that by October 18, 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. 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 4th day of October, 2022.

/s/ Kelly Fitzgerald Pate

KELLY FITZGERALD PATE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE