The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
JIBRAIL MALIK MUHAMMAD, SR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-972-BL-KFP
)
THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )
FINANCE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, )
)
Defendant. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Jibrail Malik Muhammad, Sr. filed this case on December 10, 2025.
Doc. 1. After reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint on or before March 16, 2026.
Doc. 12. Plaintiff objected to the Court’s order (Doc. 15), and requested more time to file
an amended complaint (Doc. 13). The Court ordered that Plaintiff file his amended
complaint by May 13, 2026. Doc. 17. To date, Plaintiff has failed to request an extension
or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order.
Based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and prosecute this case, the
undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome,
863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that dismissal for failure to obey a court order
where litigant has been forewarned is generally not an abuse of discretion). The authority
of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and
acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash
R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962). This authority empowers the courts “to manage their
own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. at 630–
31; Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (“The
district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”). “The sanctions imposed
[upon dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the
action with or without prejudice.” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 102.
If a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order, “[a] district court may dismiss [the]
action sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).” Goodison v. Washington Mut. Bank, 232 F.
App’x 922, 922-23 (11th Cir 2007) (citing Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F.2d 179,
181 (5th Cir. 1980)).
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice.
Further, it is ORDERED that by June 2, 2026, the parties may file an objection to
this Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings
and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party
objects. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the District
Court. This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, is not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo
determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the
Recommendation and waive the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District
Court’s order based on unobjected to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by
the District Court except on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
DONE this 19th day of May, 2026.
KELLY a PATE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE