Opinion

Danenberg v. Brown

Court
District Court, S.D. Georgia
Filed
Aug 13, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 33.4%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

ROBERT DANENBERG )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CV 124-111

)

UNIT MANAGER BROWN, )

)

Defendant. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

According to Local Rule 4.1, the commencement of a civil action requires compliance

with four specific criteria, including the presentation of the original complaint and the

appropriate filing fee, or the original complaint and a petition to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). When Plaintiff submitted his complaint on July 15, 2024, he did not pay the filing

fee or submit a motion to proceed IFP. The Clerk of Court issued a deficiency notice that

same day regarding the need to pay the $405 filing fee or file a motion to proceed IFP, and

the notice warned Plaintiff that failure to correct the deficiency could result in dismissal of

his case. (See doc. no. 2.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the Clerk’s deficiency notice.

A district court has authority to manage its docket to expeditiously resolve cases, and

this authority includes the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to

comply with a court order. Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv.,

Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); see also Eades v.

Ala. Dep’t of Human Res., 298 F. App’x 862, 863 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“District

courts possess the ability to dismiss a case . . . for want of prosecution based on two possible

sources of authority: Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) or their inherent authority to manage their

dockets.”). Moreover, the Local Rules of the Southern District of Georgia dictate that an

“assigned Judge may, after notice to counsel of record, sua sponte . . . dismiss any action for

want of prosecution, with or without prejudice . . . [for] [willful disobedience or neglect of

any order of the Court; or [a]ny other failure to prosecute a civil action with reasonable

promptness.” Loc. R. 41.1 (b) & (c).

Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements for commencing a civil action by filing

a complaint unaccompanied by the full filing fee or a motion to proceed IFP, and when given

the opportunity to correct the deficiency, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Clerk’s notice.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the filing requirements of the Local Rules and his failure to

respond to the Clerk’s deficiency notice, amounts not only to a failure to prosecute, but also

an abandonment of his case.

In sum, the time to respond has passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or

submitted a motion to proceed IFP as required. Accordingly, the Court REPORTS and

RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and CLOSED.

SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 2024, at Augusta,

Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.