# FANT

> District Court, N.D. Florida · October 6, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11198139

## Case

- **Full name:** Eric Antonio Fant v. Christopher Powell, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Florida
- **Decided:** October 6, 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/11198139

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11198139. Public record. Not legal advice.