stating that dismissal for failure to obey a court order is generally not an abuse of discretion where the 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 the 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
CARVELL TONY BROWN, )
AIS 276332, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-CV-316-ECM-KFP
)
JOHN Q. HAMM, COMM., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Easterling Correctional Facility, filed a hand-written
document on May 24, 2024, which was docketed as a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Doc. 1. On May 30, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing
fee by June 20, 2024, and specifically cautioned that a failure to comply with the Order
would result in dismissal. Doc. 4. Plaintiff has not paid the initial partial filing fee or
otherwise complied with the Court’s Order.
Because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court’s orders, the undersigned
concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See 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 the 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; see also 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 August 29, 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 by the Court. 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 upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. See 11th Cir. R.
R. 3–1.
DONE this 15th day of August, 2024.
/s/ Kelly Fitzgerald Pate
KELLY FITZGERALD PATE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE