United States District Court, S.D. Florida
Vincent Keith Rozier, Pro Se
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE DISMISSAL
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS
Introduction and Relevant Procedural
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
on the foregoing, it is recommended that:
civil action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with Court
orders. See Fed. ...