# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. Florida · May 19, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11355594

## Case

- **Full name:** Walter Wayne Brown Jr. v. T. Bruce Bell, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Florida
- **Decided:** May 19, 2026
- **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/11355594

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:25-cv-23629-LFL

WALTER WAYNE BROWN JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. BRUCE BELL, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. This matter was
assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Administrative Order
2025-11. Because I find that dismissal of this case is warranted and I do not presently have
authority to issue a dispositive order, I am issuing this Report and Recommendation. I have
separately entered an Order directing the Clerk to reassign this case to a District Judge of this
Court.
For the following reasons, I respectfully RECOMMEND that this action be DISMISSED
without prejudice.
II. DISCUSSION
Upon filing the Complaint, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee for initiating a civil action or
file an application to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, a motion to proceed without prepaying
fees or costs (“IFP Motion”). Therefore, I ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file an
IFP Motion within 30 days. (ECF No. 6). When Plaintiff failed to comply with that Order by the
deadline, I entered a Second Order requiring that Plaintiff either pay the filing fee or file an IFP
Motion within 21 days. (ECF No. 11). That deadline has now passed and again Plaintiff failed to
comply.
Any party filing a lawsuit in Federal Court must pay a total fee of $405.00. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a). Timely payment of the filing fee is not a jurisdictional requisite. See Wrenn v. Am. Cast

Iron Pipe Co., 575 F.2d 544, 547 (5th Cir. 1978); Rodgers ex rel. Jones v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 1550,
1551–52 (11th Cir. 1986). Rather, when a plaintiff fails to comply with the Court’s orders to pay
the filing fee, the proper standard for determining whether dismissal is warranted is Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Judkins v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 723 F.2d 818, 819 (11th Cir. 1984).
Dismissal “with prejudice” under Rule 41(b) “is an extreme sanction that may be properly
imposed only when: (1) a party engages in a clear pattern of delay or willful contempt
(contumacious conduct); and (2) the district court specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not
suffice.” Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337–38 (11th Cir. 2005). But
“[c]ourts are afforded greater discretion in dismissing cases where dismissal is without prejudice.”
Holmes v. Campbell, No. 23-14066-CIV, 2024 WL 1077404, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2024) (citing

Coleman v. St. Lucie Cnty. Jail, 433 F. App’x 716, 718–19 (11th Cir. 2011)); see also Taylor v.
Nelson, 356 F. App’x 318 (11th Cir. 2009) (a district court does not abuse its discretion by
dismissing complaint for failure to comply with order to submit documentation or pay filing fee).
The undersigned twice ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file an IFP Motion.
(ECF Nos. 6, 11). The docket reflects that both Orders were promptly mailed to Plaintiff’s address
of record. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Orders.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the above reasons, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Court
dismiss this action without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is instructed to mail a copy of this Report and Recommendations to
Plaintiff.
A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendations
with the assigned United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendations.
Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of anything
in this recommendation and shall constitute a waiver of a party’s “right to challenge on appeal the
district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1
(2016); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977
F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers at Miami,florida, this 19th day of May,
2026. ;
LA N F. LOUIS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11355594. Public record. Not legal advice.