The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
GREGORY A. HERNDON,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:26cv3529-MW-HTC
S. DOVE, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Gregory A. Herndon, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that officers at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution
violated his constitutional rights by keeping him in close management and denying
him proper review of his close management status. Doc. 1. On May 29, 2026, the
Court found that Herndon’s complaint failed to state a claim and ordered him to file
either an amended complaint on the Court’s required form or a notice of voluntary
dismissal. Doc. 6. The Court advised Herndon that his failure to comply could result
in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. On June 30, the Court gave
Herndon fourteen days to show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to
his failure to comply with the May 29 Order. Doc. 7. The Court again advised
Herndon that his failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this case
be dismissed without further notice. Id. To date, Herndon has not filed anything
further in this case.
Based on the foregoing, dismissal of this case is appropriate. See 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); 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).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Herndon’s
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders.
2. The clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida this 20th day of July, 2026.
/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 (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. 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.