Ulrick Andre Bolton v. Heely-Brown

Case: 14-14024 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14024
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00559-TCB
ULRICK ANDRE BOLTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HEELY-BROWN,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 25, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-14024 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Ulrick Bolton, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint for failure to obey a court order. After Bolton filed his
original complaint, the district court ordered him to amend his complaint to address
the pleading deficiencies identified in a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. The court also warned him that failing to comply with its order
would result in dismissal. Bolton argues that the reason he failed to obey the
court’s order was because he hired an attorney that failed to file his required
documents. However, because Bolton never filed an amended complaint after the
district court warned him of the consequences and gave him a specific date by
which to amend, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his complaint.
We review a district court’s order dismissing an action for failure to comply
with the rules of the court for abuse of discretion. Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d
479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006). A court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or through its own inherent authority
for failure to obey a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Betty K Agencies, Ltd.
v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). Although the district
court did not specify whether the action was dismissed with or without prejudice,
the court made no findings that lesser sanctions would not suffice; therefore, we
will presume the dismissal was without prejudice. See Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432
F.3d at 1337–38.
2
Case: 14-14024 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 3 of 4
As an initial matter, the only proper claim on appeal is whether the district
court abused its discretion by dismissing Bolton’s complaint for failure to comply
with a court order. Bolton asserts the district court erred in granting summary
judgment and that it did not consider his evidence, but the district court did not
grant summary judgment. Moreover, Bolton offers arguments with regard to the
adequacy of his complaint, but the district court did not dismiss his complaint for
failure to state a claim. Finally, Bolton states that he wishes to proceed in forma
pauperis, but this court has already decided and denied Bolton’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis.
Turning to the sole issue before us, we are not convinced that the district
court abused its discretion by dismissing Bolton’s complaint. The district court
told Bolton that he needed to amend his complaint, gave him a specific date by
which to do so, and forewarned him that it would dismiss his case if he did not, but
Bolton still failed to either amend his complaint or request an extension of time.
See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“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.”). Although
Bolton argues that he hired an attorney and it was the attorney’s fault, no attorney
ever entered an appearance or filed any documents on Bolton’s behalf. And, even
giving due consideration to Bolton’s pro se status, Bolton nevertheless failed to
3
Case: 14-14024 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 4 of 4
comport with the clear order of the district court. Accordingly, in light of the
district court’s forewarning of dismissal and Bolton’s failure to comply with the
court’s order, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bolton’s
complaint.
AFFIRMED.
4