# Danenberg v. Brown

> District Court, S.D. Georgia · August 13, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10765810

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Georgia
- **Decided:** August 13, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10765810

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10765810. Public record. Not legal advice.