Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rozier v. Enser

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

May 6, 2019

VINCENT KEITH ROZIER, Plaintiff,
v.
LT. SHAWN ENSER, et al., Defendants.

          Vincent Keith Rozier, Pro Se

          REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE DISMISSAL NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS

          REID MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural Background

         Plaintiff, Vincent Keith Rozier, has filed a pro se letter, opened by the Clerk of Court, as a civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE#1). Plaintiff indicated his intent to sue numerous Broward Sheriff's Office employees arising from a claim that they failed to keep the Plaintiff safe from harm, relating to an incident involving a "deadly projectile." (DE#1:1).

         This case has been referred to the Undersigned for the issuance of all preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), S.D. Fla. Local Rule 1(f) governing Magistrate Judges, and S.D. Fla. Admin. Order 2019-2.

         On March 8, 2019, an order was entered requiring the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the court-approved civil rights form, because his current filing was not on the proper form, did not contain a prayer for relief, did not provide any facts surrounding the incident complained of, nor how the named Defendants were involved in the purported violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (DE#5). The amended complaint was due to be filed by the Plaintiff on or before April 8, 2019. (Id.). The Plaintiff has not filed the amended complaint, as ordered.

         Since the Plaintiff had neither paid the Clerk's filing fee nor moved for pauper status, a second order was entered that same day requiring Plaintiff to either pay the Clerk's $400 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (DE#6). On March 22, 2019, the Clerk docketed Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted by court order entered on March 25, 2019. (DE#7). The Plaintiff, however, was instructed that an initial payment of $62.00 was due on or before April 22, 2019. (Id.). To date, the Plaintiff has not submitted the required filing fee, as ordered.

         For the following reasons, this action should be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders or for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

         II. Discussion

         The Eleventh Circuit has explained that “[a] district court has inherent authority to manage its own docket ‘so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.'” Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)). Such authority includes the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with a court order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Id.

         As previously stated, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this court's orders regarding the filing of an amended complaint, and the first installment payment on the Clerk's filing fee. He has filed nothing with this court since the receipt by the Clerk of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on March 22, 2019 Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has failed to monitor and diligently pursue his own case. Under the circumstances, pursuant to Rule 41(b), this case should be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's orders and for want of prosecution. See also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.1989) (“While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order generally is not an abuse of discretion.”).

         III. Conclusion

         Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that:

         1 This civil action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with Court orders. See Fed. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.