Lola v. Miami Herald, Inc. ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 20-10091-CV-KING MAGISTRATE JUDGE REID DAVID JAMES LOLA, Plaintiff, v. MIAMI HERALD INC., et al., Defendants. _____________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. This cause has been referred to the Undersigned for Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Fla. Admin. Order 2019-2. [ECF No. 2]. On August 10, 2020, the Undersigned Ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by September 6, 2020. [ECF No. 5]. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to file the amended complaint on time would probably result in dismissal of this case. [Id. at 4]. Instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed an “Appeal and Objections to Order to Amend Complaint,” essentially alleging that his initial complaint was properly pled and that he would not file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order. [ECF No. 6]. In light of Plaintiff’s objections and his failure to timely file his amended complaint, the Court sua sponte extended the time to file an amended complaint on September 10, 2020. [ECF No. 9]. In that order, the Court informed Plaintiff that the amended complaint deadline was now extended until October 9, 2020. [Id.]. Plaintiff was informed that failure to file an amended complaint by October 9, 2020, would result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders. [Id.]. In response, Plaintiff again filed an “appeal” of the order, arguing that he “cannot legally or constitutionally be compelled to file an amended complaint.” [ECF No. 11 at 6]. This Court has the inherent authority to govern its proceedings. See 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). See id. See also Equity Lifestyle Props, Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Servs., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Chambers,501 U.S. at 43). “While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). Under these circumstances, this case should be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Undersigned’s two Orders and for want of prosecution. Thus, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with Court Orders and all that pending motions be DENIED AS MOOT. Objections to this Report may be filed with the District Judge within fourteen days of receipt of a copy of the report. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of anything in the Report and Recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). SIGNED this 13th day of October, 2020. of ED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: David James Lola 18001264 Monroe County Jail Inmate Mail/Parcels 5501 College Road Key West, FL 33040 PRO SE