# STIRN v. CASTRO

> District Court, N.D. Florida · April 17, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11052729

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Florida
- **Decided:** April 17, 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/11052729

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

NOAH DEVON STIRN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25cv197-LC-HTC

LIEUTENANT CASTRO, et al.,

Defendants.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 26, 2025, the Court deferred ruling on Plaintiff Noah Stirn’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to, within twenty-one days,
either: (1) pay the $405 filing fee; or (2) submit a financial certificate signed by an
authorized jail official and a printout of the transactions in his inmate trust account
for the six months preceding the filing of the complaint. Doc. 4. The Court warned
Stirn that his failure to comply with the February 26 Order could result in a
recommendation that this case be dismissed. After Stirn failed to comply within the
allotted time, the Court ordered him on March 27, 2025, to show cause within
fourteen days why this case should not be dismissed due to his failure to comply
with the February 26 Order. Doc. 6.
To date, Stirn has not responded to the March 27 Order or complied with the
February 26 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 Stirn’s
failure to comply with Court orders.

2. That all pending motions (Docs. 2 & 5) be terminated as MOOT.
3. That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 17th day of April, 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/11052729. Public record. Not legal advice.