Williams v. McMillian (INMATE 2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DEMARCUS WILLIAMS, #296 345, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:18-cv-938-MHT-JTA

) (WO)

C.O. DARRYL MCMILLIAN, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff DeMarcus Williams, appearing pro se, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Complaint on November 1, 2018. Doc. 1. On August 23, 2021, the Court entered an Order

directing Plaintiff to advise the Court of whether he sought to proceed with this cause of

action as the continued prosecution of this case might entail appearances before the Court

for various necessary proceedings. Doc. 58. The Court informed Plaintiff that his failure

to file a response to the August 23, 2021, Order would result in a Recommendation this

case be dismissed. Id. To date, Plaintiff has filed no response to the August 23, 2021,

Order. The Court, therefore, concludes this case is due to be dismissed.

The Court has reviewed the file to determine whether a measure less drastic than

dismissal is appropriate. See Abreu-Velez v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Georgia,

248 F. App’x 116, 117–18 (11th Cir. 2007). After such review, the Court finds dismissal

of this case is the proper course of action. First, the administration of this case cannot

properly proceed in Plaintiff’s absence. Next, it appears Plaintiff is no longer interested in

the prosecution of this case as he has failed to comply with the order of the Court. Finally,

under the circumstances of this case, any additional effort by this Court to secure Plaintiff’s

compliance would be unavailing and a waste of the Court’s scarce judicial resources.

Consequently, the undersigned concludes this case is due to be dismissed. See Moon v.

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that, as a general rule, where a

litigant has been forewarned dismissal for failure to obey a court order is 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.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) (observing that a “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.” Id.

Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be

DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is ORDERED that objections to the Recommendation must be filed by October

7, 2021. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which objection is made.

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.

This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore it is not appealable. Failure to file

written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge’s

report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of factual

findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions”

except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11TH Cir. R. 3-

1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir.

1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE this 22nd day of September, 2021.

J.

ie ho eta ——

ITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE