CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1057-MHT-CSC [WO]
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 22, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to forward to the Clerk of Court an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $1.47. Doc. 5. Plaintiff was cautioned his failure to comply with the January 22 Order would result in a Recommendation his Complaint be dismissed. Id.
The time to comply with the January 22, 2021, Order expired on February 12, 2021, and Plaintiff has not provided the Court with the initial partial filing fee. The Court, therefore, concludes this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining 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.); .); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962) (acknowledging that the authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and empowers courts "to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases."); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that "[t]he 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.").
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of the Court and to prosecute this action.
Plaintiff may file objections to the Recommendation on or before March 23, 2021. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report 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); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
Done, this 9th day of March 2021.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE