“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)] for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”
How later courts described this case
- “The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)] for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”
- “[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
LAVAROS DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:24cv290-TKW-HTC
POWERS, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 25, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff Lavaros Davis to, within 21
days, file a complaint on the required complaint form and either file a complete
motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $405 filing fee. Doc. 3. The Court
subsequently granted two motions Davis filed asking for additional time to comply
with the June 25 Order, making the deadline September 3, 2024. Docs. 4 – 7. As
the Court noted in its most recent order granting an extension:
With this extension, Davis will have had 70 days to comply with the
June 25 Order. Thus, no further extensions will be granted absent
extraordinary circumstances, and a failure to comply with the extended
deadline will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed.
Doc. 7 at 2. Despite this warning, Davis has not complied with the June 25 Order.
Based on the foregoing, dismissal of this case is appropriate. See Brown v.
Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may
dismiss an action sua sponte under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)] for
failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citations omitted); Moon v.
Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[D]ismissal upon disregard of an
order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse
of discretion.”) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Davis’s
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders.
2. That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 10th day of September, 2024.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different
deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only
and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon
all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.