Williams v. Houston County (INMATE1) ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION DONALD C. WILLIAMS, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:19-cv-996-WHA-WC ) HOUSTON COUNTY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff, an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action regarding conditions at the Houston County Jail. After reviewing the complaint, the court deemed it necessary that Plaintiff file an amended complaint and provided him an opportunity to do so. A detailed order was therefore issued explaining the need for an amended complaint and providing Plaintiff specific instructions with respect to filing the amended complaint. Doc. 6 at 1–6. The court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the directives of this order would result in a Recommendation that this case be dismissed. Doc. 6 at 6. The time allowed Plaintiff to file the amended complaint expired on January 6, 2020. As of the present date, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint as required by this court. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite amended complaint, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed. Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply); 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) (holding 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. at 102. For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint as ordered by this court. On or before February 10, 2020, Plaintiff may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which he objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and legal conclusions set forth in the Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of these factual findings and legal conclusions 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)(“When the magistrate provides such notice and a party still fails to object to the findings of fact and those findings are adopted by the district court the party may not challenge them on appeal in the absence of plain error or manifest injustice.”); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). DONE this 27th day of January, 2020. /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE