holding that, 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
- holding that, as a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.
- “When the magistrate provides such notice and a party still fails to object to the findings of fact and those findings are adopted by the district court the party may not challenge them on appeal in the absence of plain error or manifest injustice.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID BRADLEY WILSON, )
AIS #277765, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 1:22-CV-587-RAH-CSC
)
JASON SMOAK, )
)
Defendant. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, an indigent inmate, recently filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
Defendant subjected him deliberate indifference by failing to treat his serious medical
conditions while he was housed at the Houston County Jail. (Doc. 1). In the Order of
Procedure, the Court advised the Plaintiff of his duty to notify the Court of any changes in
his address and warned him that a failure to do so would result in dismissal of this action.
(Doc. 4 at pp. 3-4). On December 6, 2022, the Court issued an order requiring the Plaintiff
to update the Court as to his new address. (Doc. 7). As of the present date, the court has
received no response from Plaintiff to the aforementioned order nor has Plaintiff provided
the court with an address where he may be served as is necessary to his proceeding with
this case. The undersigned therefore concludes 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). After this review, it is clear that
dismissal of this case is the proper course of action. Initially, the administration of this
case cannot properly proceed in Plaintiff’s absence. It likewise appears that Plaintiff is no
longer interested in the prosecution of this case as he has not made his whereabouts known
to the court. Finally, under the circumstances of this case, the undersigned finds that any
additional effort to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing and a waste of this
court’s scarce judicial 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) (holding
that, 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 a “district court
possesses the inherent power to police its docket” and “the sanctions imposed [upon
dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with
or without prejudice.” Id.).
2
For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate
Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to provide the
court with a current address.
On or before January 18, 2023, Plaintiff may file objections to the
Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which he objects. Plaintiff must specifically
identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which the
objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and legal conclusions set
forth in the Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will bar a party from a de novo
determination by the District Court of these factual findings and legal conclusions 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) (“When the magistrate provides such notice and a
party still fails to object to the findings of fact and those findings are adopted by the district
court the party may not challenge them on appeal in the absence of plain error or manifest
injustice.”); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
3
DONE this 4th day of January, 2023.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4