Opinion

FANT

Court
District Court, N.D. Florida
Filed
Oct 6, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 36.7%

“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

ERIC ANTONIO FANT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25cv842-AW-HTC

CHRISTOPHER POWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Eric Antonio Fant, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

against the Escambia County Jail arising out of his conditions of confinement. Doc.

1. For the reasons set forth below, this case should be dismissed for failure to

prosecute and for failure to comply with orders of the Court.

On August 5, 2025, the Court granted Fant’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis with the payment of an initial partial filing fee and ordered Fant to pay

$27.66. Doc. 14. The Court advised him that failing to follow the Court’s Order

could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. After one show

cause order issued on September 4, 2025 (Doc. 17), and an extension of time granted

on September 16, 2025 (Doc. 19), Fant was ordered to pay the $27.66 initial partial

filing fee by September 30, 2025. On September 19, 2025, Fant remitted $12.61.

That amount is less than what Fant was ordered to pay. As of this Order, Fant has

not remitted the full initial partial filing fee, and his time to do so has passed. The

Court warned Fant in its prior orders that his failure to comply would result in a

recommendation of dismissal. Id.

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 for Plaintiff’s failure

to prosecute and to comply with Court orders.

2. That the clerk close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 6th day of October, 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 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; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.