# CLARK v. BRISTOW

> District Court, N.D. Florida · March 27, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10852457

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Florida
- **Decided:** March 27, 2025
- **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/10852457

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOSEPH CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:24cv477-TKW-HTC

BRADLEY A. BRISTOW,

Defendant.
________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Joseph Clark, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an
amended civil complaint against Defendant Bradley A. Bristow, asserting claims of
libel per-se and slander per-se. Doc. 6. Although the United States Marshals Service
served Bristow with the summons and complaint on January 7, 2025 (Doc. 16), there
has been no other activity in this case since that date. Thus, on March 3, 2025, the
Court ordered Clark to show cause within fourteen (14) days why this case should
not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. Doc. 17. The Court warned Clark that
his failure to comply with the March 3 order could result in a recommendation that
this case be dismissed. Id. Clark did not respond to the Court’s Order.
Based on the foregoing, dismissal of this case is appropriate for two reasons.
First, Clark failed to respond to the show cause order. See 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). Second, Clark has failed to prosecute this action by timely

seeking a clerk’s default or default judgment. 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); Birmingham v. RoFx.net, No. 21-23472-
CIV, 2022 WL 19406163, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 17, 2022) (“If the Plaintiffs fail to
timely seek a Clerk’s default or a default judgment, the Court may dismiss this action
as to such Defendant, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute.”).

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Clark’s
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders.

2. That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 27th day of March, 2025.
/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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10852457. Public record. Not legal advice.