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
EASTERN DIVISION
QUINCY TYRONE HILL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 3:24-CV-216-RAH-KFP
)
NONA ADAMS BROWN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this case on April 5, 2024. He submitted a Motion
for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) but did not include the required
documentation from his facility’s inmate account clerk. The Court ordered him to file the
required documentation by May 3, 2024, and warned that a failure to comply would result
in a recommendation of dismissal. Doc. 4. To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply.
Because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, 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
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.
For the above reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this
case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
Further, it is ORDERED that by July 16, 2024, 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. 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. 11th Cir. R. 3–1.
DONE this 2nd day of July, 2024.
/s/ Kelly Fitzgerald Pate
KELLY FITZGERALD PATE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE