OSWALD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CORY NOLE OSWALD,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:26cv778-MW-HTC

CLERK OF COURT ESCAMBIA COUNTY,

Respondent.

__________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Cory Nole Oswald, a pretrial detainee at the Escambia County Jail

proceeding pro se, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 22411 (Doc. 1) and an

incomplete motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). The in forma pauperis

motion contained only the first two pages of the Court’s required form, including the

motion and financial affidavit. The Court’s official form also requires Petitioner to

provide a Prisoner Consent Form, a Financial Certificate signed by an appropriate

Jail official, and a trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the

prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint

or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison or jail at

1 Although Oswald used a § 2241 form, the allegations in the petition do not seek relief cognizable

under § 2241. For example, Oswald asserts the action he is challenging arises from his November

2025 felony arraignments and that the videos will show he is a victim of police brutality. Doc. 1

at 2. Similarly, in response to why he feels relief under § 2255 is inadequate, he references prior

which the prisoner is or was confined. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.3; 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a).

Therefore, on February 17, 2026, the Court entered an Order sending Oswald

the forms for proceeding in forma pauperis and requiring him, by March 3, 2026, to

submit a complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or alternatively, pay the full

filing fee of $5.00. Doc. 5. Oswald has not responded in any way to that Order, and

the time for doing so has passed.

Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss

a claim where a plaintiff has failed to prosecute those claims, comply with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules, or follow a court order.  Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(b); see also Coleman v. St. Lucie Cty. Jail, 433 F. App’x 716, 718 (11th Cir.

2011); Sanders v. Barrett, 2005 WL 2640979, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing

Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 192 (11th Cir. 1993)).  A district court’s “power to

dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt

disposition of lawsuits.”  Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802

(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983)).

Because Oswald has failed to comply with this Court’s prior orders, this action

should be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED, that:

1. This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Petitioner’s

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders.

2. The clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 10th day of March, 2026.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may 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. A copy of objections shall be served upon the magistrate judge

and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the

district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th

Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.