# Brown v. Brantley

> District Court, S.D. Georgia · May 21, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11056001

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Georgia
- **Decided:** May 21, 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/11056001

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

PATRICK BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CV 125-076
)
GINO BRANTLEY; CAPTAIN DANIELS; )
CAPTAIN HARRELL; DETRA WILLIS; )
CORPORAL SEYMORE; CORPORAL )
ELLISON; CORPORAL DELAGO; )
CORPORAL KUNTZ; CORPORAL )
CAVELL; DEPUTY THOMAS; DEPUTY )
SEARS; DEPUTY BUSBY; DEPUTY GIST; )
DEPUTY BRINTSON; DEPUTY )
BLASTINGGAME; DEPUTY GILMORE; )
DEPUTY PRESCOTT; DEPUTY )
MCDANIELS; DEPUTY GABI; )
DEPUTY TRAVIS; DEPUTY CARLEE; )
DEPUTY PERISH; LIEUTENANT )
JENKINS; DOCTOR CARSON; )
DOCTOR CROSBY; NURSE BAKER; )
NURSE CLARK; NURSE PERLEY; NURSE )
ROGERS; and CHAPLAIN THOMAS )
CLICK, )
)
Defendants. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff was detained at Charles B. Webster Detention Center in Augusta, Georgia,
when he filed the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. no. 1.) On March
31, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), subject to
returning the requisite Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement and Consent to Collection of
Fees form within thirty days. (See doc. no. 3.) Plaintiff was cautioned failure to respond
would be an election to have this case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. (See id. at 4.)
The time to respond has passed, and Plaintiff has not submitted the documents required by the

Court’s March 31st Order. In fact, the Court’s Order was returned to the Clerk of Court as
undeliverable because Plaintiff has been released and is no longer housed at Charles B.
Webster Detention Center. (See doc. no. 4, p. 8.)
I. DISCUSSION
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 Hum. 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] [w]illful 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). Finally, dismissal without prejudice is generally appropriate pursuant
to Rule 41(b) where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order, “especially where the
litigant has been forewarned.” Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 331 F. App’x 654,
655 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (citing Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.
1989)).
Plaintiff cannot proceed IFP unless he submits the requisite Trust Fund Account
Statement and consents to collection of the entire $350.00 filing fee in installments. Wilson
v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Plaintiff
has been warned that failing to return the necessary IFP papers would be an election to have
his case voluntarily dismissed. Moreover, Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court apprised of a
valid address saddles the Court with a stagnant case in which no communication with Plaintiff
seems possible. These actions by Plaintiff amount not only to a failure to prosecute, but also
an abandonment of his case. This is precisely the type of neglect contemplated by the Local
Rules. Plaintiff has neither fulfilled the requirements for proceeding IFP, nor paid the full
filing fee, and the Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions is not a feasible
sanction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed.
Il. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this case
be DISMISSED without prejudice and that this civil action be CLOSED.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of May, 2025, at Augusta,
Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11056001. Public record. Not legal advice.