United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Terry Lee Freeze, proceeding pro se and with in forma
pauperis status, had been required to file an amended
complaint or, in the alternative, a notice of voluntary
dismissal if he conceded his claim and request for relief was
barred. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff did not comply but, instead,
filed a motion for relief from judgment. ECF No. 8. That
motion was construed as a motion for reconsideration,
granted, and the prior Order reviewed. ECF No. 9. Finding no
reason to vacate the first Order, ECF No. 7, Plaintiff was
given more time in which to comply. ECF No. 9.
of complying, Plaintiff filed a “motion objecting to a
ruling or order” pursuant to Rule 46. ECF No. 10.
Plaintiff's objection was referred to the presiding
District Judge, ECF No. 11, and Senior United States District
Judge William Stafford denied Plaintiff's motion for lack
of merit. ECF No. 12.
entry of Judge Stafford's Order, another Order was
entered providing Plaintiff with additional time in which to
comply with the prior challenged orders. ECF No. 13.
Plaintiff was directed to review the Order, ECF No. 7, which
explained the deficiencies with his initial complaint, ECF
No. 1, and several deficiencies were highlighted again for
Plaintiff's benefit. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff was required
to file an amended civil rights complaint no later than July
10, 2019, or file a notice of voluntary dismissal.
again, Plaintiff did not comply. Instead, Plaintiff filed
another “motion objecting to a ruling or order.”
ECF No. 14. Plaintiff complained that Judge Stafford's
Order, ECF No. 12, was not attached to my last Order. ECF No.
14 at 1. However, the docket reveals that Judge
Stafford's Order was entered on June 7, 2019, and mailed
to Plaintiff at his address of record. Nothing on the docket
suggests Plaintiff did not receive that Order or that it was
returned to the Court as undeliverable. Because Judge
Stafford's Order was mailed to Plaintiff, there was no
reason to attach it to my Order. Beyond that, Plaintiff's
motion quoted from prior orders and he argued there was
personal bias in advising Plaintiff of the law governing this
case. ECF No. 14. The arguments were frivolous. Thus, because
Plaintiff's motion for recusal was already denied and
because the last Order entered, ECF No. 13, did nothing more
than provide a deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the
Order, ECF No. 11, upheld by Judge Stafford, ECF No. 12,
Plaintiff's motion was construed as a motion for
reconsideration and denied. ECF No. 15.
was given until July 10, 2019, to file an
amended complaint which properly set forth a claim, clearly
stated facts in support of that claim, and requested relief
which could be granted in a civil rights action. ECF No. 15.
Plaintiff was directed to review the March 19, 2019, Order
for more detailed information, ECF No. 7, and he was
cautioned that if he did not comply, a recommendation would
be made to dismiss this case. ECF No. 15. Despite that
warning, Plaintiff has not complied. It appears that
Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.
Supreme Court has held that “[t]he authority of a court
to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally
been considered an ‘inherent power,' governed not
by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in
courts to manage their own affairs.” Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct.
1386, 1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K
Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th
Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. A
“court may dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to
prosecute it or comply with a court order.” Equity
Lifestyle Properties, Inc. v. Fla. Mowing And Landscape
Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009).
Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case,
dismissal is now appropriate.
respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be
DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and
failure to comply with a Court Order.
TO THE PARTIES
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file
specific written objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the
objections shall be served upon all other parties. A party
may respond to another party's objections within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may
appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's
internal use only and does not control. If a party fails
to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained
in this Report and ...